Access Mobility International Limited and Others v Dcoin Branch of Danat Gulf Company for General Trading Limited and Others [2026] UGCOMMC 196
Observed later treatment
No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.
Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains 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 High Court held that where parties have entered into a valid arbitration agreement, the court must refer the dispute to arbitration unless the agreement is null and void, inoperative, or incapable of being performed. Questions regarding whether non-signatories are bound by the arbitration clause are jurisdictional matters to be determined by the arbitral tribunal itself. The application was allowed, the civil suit dismissed, and the matter referred to arbitration.
Outcome
Civil suit dismissed and matter referred to arbitration; jurisdictional questions regarding non-signatories to be determined by arbitral tribunal
Facts
The 1st applicant and 1st respondent entered into a Sales and Purchase Agreement dated 9 October 2023 and executed on 24 November 2023 for the supply of 5kg of gold. The agreement contained an arbitration clause at clause 11. On 1 April 2025, the respondents filed Civil Suit No. 0379 of 2025 in the High Court against the applicants, seeking declarations for breach of contract and damages. The respondents alleged that the applicants failed to meet their obligations under the agreement, including relinquishing 1kg of gold to the custody of the 3rd applicant and making further payments. The applicants filed a defence and then brought this application seeking referral of the dispute to arbitration and dismissal of the suit on the ground that it violated the arbitration clause. The respondents opposed, arguing that some parties to the suit were not signatories to the arbitration agreement and that the arbitration clause was entered into under a fundamental mistake.
Issues
- Whether the dispute arising from Civil Suit No. 0379 of 2025 should be referred to arbitration in accordance with the arbitration clause agreed between the parties.
- Whether Civil Suit No. 0379 of 2025 should be dismissed as it violates the arbitration clause.
Orders
- Application allowed.
- Civil Suit No. 0379 of 2025 dismissed.
- Dispute in Civil Suit No. 0379 of 2025 referred to arbitration.
- Costs to be in the decision of the arbitral tribunal.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (7)
Cases cited (12)
- Network Civil Engineering Contractors Ltd & Paul Mwirumubi v Francis Mujjuni (Misc. Application No. 3093 of 2023)
- National Social Security Fund v Alcon International Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 02 of 2008)
- Francis Xavier Muhoozi t/a Kabale Kobil Station v National Bank of Commerce (U) Ltd [2007] UGCommC 37
- Sumadhura Technologies Ltd v Advan Mbabazi (Misc. Application No. 2399 of 2024)
- Ndife v Kampala University [2024] UGHCCD 172
- Koboko District Local Government v Okujjo Swali (Miscellaneous Application No. 0001 of 2016)
- Babcon (U) Ltd v Mbale Resort Hotel (Civil Appeal No. 87 of 2011)
- Fulgensius Mungereza v Africa Central (Civil Appeal No. 34 of 2001)
- Smile Communications Uganda Ltd v ATC Uganda Ltd & Anor (HCAC No. 0004 of 2022)
- Heyam and Another Vs Darwins Ltd [1942] 1 All ER 337
- Premium Nafta Products Ltd and Others Vs Fili Shipping Company Ltd and 30 Others [2007] UKHL 40
- Thomson-CSF SA vs American Arbitration Association and Evans & Sutherland Computer Corporation (64 F 3d 773, 776 (2d Cir 1995)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.