Simba Properties Investment Co. Ltd and Others v Vantage Mezzanine Fund II Partnership and Another (Civil Application No. 1295 of 2023)

Court of Appeal · [2025] UGCA 279 · 2025 Application Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Application to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal against an interlocutory order of the High Court made in proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act

Decision

Application for leave to appeal refused and dismissed with costs

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 6 (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 Court of Appeal held that for it to have appellate jurisdiction under section 10 of the Judicature Act, a right of appeal, with or without leave, must be created by law. The order intended to be appealed was an interlocutory order made in proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, and section 9 of that Act bars court intervention except as provided in the Act. Following Babcon Uganda Ltd v Mbale Resort Hotel Ltd, the court held that no appeal lies, directly or with leave, against such an order. The application for leave to appeal was accordingly refused and dismissed with costs.

Facts

The High Court (Ocaya, J.) made interlocutory orders restraining the Commissioner of Lands and the Uganda Registration Services Bureau from taking actions affecting the applicants' rights pending determination of an application for recognition and enforcement of a final arbitral award and its addendum, and suspended certain board resolutions affecting the shareholding of Elgon Terrace Hotel Ltd and Linda Properties Ltd. Dissatisfied, the applicants first sought leave to appeal in the High Court, withdrew that application to avoid a particular judge, and then applied to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal against the order. The respondents opposed the application. The orders sought to be appealed were interlocutory, effective only until the High Court determined the application for recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award, and arose from proceedings governed by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

Issues

Whether an appeal lies to the Court of Appeal, with or without leave of court, against an interlocutory order of the High Court made in proceedings governed by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

Orders

The application for leave to appeal is refused.
The application is dismissed with costs.

Key headnotes

Appeals — Court of Appeal jurisdiction — Requirement of a statutory right of appeal under section 10 of the Judicature Act

For the Court of Appeal to exercise appellate jurisdiction over a decision of the High Court under section 10 of the Judicature Act, there must be a right of appeal, with or without leave of court, created by law.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act — Limited court intervention — No appeal against interlocutory orders in arbitration-related proceedings

Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act precludes court intervention in matters governed by the Act except as provided in the Act, and no appeal lies, directly or with leave, against an interlocutory order made in proceedings under the Act.

Legislation cited (2)

Judicature Act s.10
Arbitration and Conciliation Act s.9

Cases cited (2)

Babcon Usanda Ltd v Mbale Resor Xqtclltcl [2015] UGCA 2016
[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.