Wakilii

Simba Properties Investment Co. Ltd and Another v Robert Kirunda and Others (Civil Application No. 537 of 2022)

Court of Appeal · [2025] UGCA 282 · 2025 Application Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for a temporary injunction in the Court of Appeal pending determination of an intended appeal from a High Court decision
Decision
Application for a temporary injunction dismissed with costs for want of jurisdiction

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment
Cited — treatment unverified cited in 2 (treatment unverified) Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions — always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The applicants sought a temporary injunction restraining sale of mortgaged properties pending an intended appeal against a High Court decision that had dismissed their suit and application. The High Court had held that the disputes arose out of the Mezzanine Term Facility Agreement and were the subject of ongoing arbitration, so that under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act no court could intervene. The Court of Appeal agreed and held that, because the matter was governed by the Act, no right of appeal existed against the decision. Without a right of appeal there was no pending or competent appeal, and the court therefore had no jurisdiction to entertain the application for a temporary injunction. The application was dismissed with costs.

Facts

The applicants filed High Court Civil Suit No. 424 of 2022 and Misc. Application No. 671 of 2022 challenging the validity of advertised sales of properties they had mortgaged in connection with the Mezzanine Term Facility Agreement involving Vantage Mezzanine Fund II Partnership. The High Court (Mubiru, J.) dismissed both the application and the suit, finding that the disputes concerned the existence, validity, performance, breach, termination or consequences of nullity of the mortgages created as collateral to the Mezzanine Term Facility Agreement, which were already the subject of ongoing arbitration. He held that section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act barred court intervention. The applicants lodged a notice of appeal and sought, in the Court of Appeal, a temporary injunction restraining respondents no.1 and no.2 from selling or disposing of six specified mortgaged properties pending determination of the intended appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether an appeal lies to the Court of Appeal against a High Court decision dismissing a suit and application in a matter governed by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
  2. Whether the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to grant a temporary injunction pending appeal where no right of appeal exists against the decision sought to be appealed.

Orders

  • Application dismissed with costs.

Key headnotes

Arbitration & ADR — Extent of Court Intervention — Section 9 Arbitration and Conciliation Act
Where a dispute concerns the existence, validity, performance, breach, termination or consequences of nullity of agreements that are the subject of ongoing arbitration, courts are interdicted by section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act from intervening in those matters.
Arbitration & ADR — Right of Appeal — Matters Governed by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act
No right of appeal exists against a decision in a matter governed by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act unless the Act specifically authorises such an appeal.
Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunction Pending Appeal — Jurisdiction
The Court of Appeal can only entertain an application for a temporary injunction pending appeal where a right of appeal exists and an appeal is pending or otherwise initiated; absent a right of appeal the court has no jurisdiction to grant the injunction.

Legislation cited (1)

  • Arbitration and Conciliation Act s.9

Cases cited (2)

  • Babcon Uganda Ltd v Mbale Resort Hotel Ltd [2015] UGCA 2016
  • Babcon Uganda Ltd v Mbale Resort Hotel Ltd [2017] UGSC 83
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.