Wakilii

Access Mobility International Limited and Others v Dcoin Branch of Danat Gulf Company for General Trading Limited and Others (Miscellaneous Application 2109 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGCommC 1 Application Granted — Dispute Referred to Arbitration AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to refer dispute arising from Civil Suit No. 0379 of 2025 to arbitration under an arbitration clause in the parties' agreement
Decision
Civil suit dismissed and dispute referred to arbitration; jurisdictional claims concerning non-signatory parties to be determined by arbitral tribunal

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, disputes falling within its scope must be referred to arbitration under section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Questions of whether non-signatory parties are bound by the arbitration agreement can be determined by the arbitral tribunal. The court referred the entire dispute to arbitration and dismissed the civil suit, leaving jurisdictional claims to be decided by the arbitral tribunal.

Outcome

Civil suit dismissed and dispute referred to arbitration; jurisdictional claims concerning non-signatory parties 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 24 November 2023 for the supply of 5 kg 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, special and general damages. According to the plaint, the 4th applicant introduced the parties, the respondents paid USD 15,000, and the 1st and 2nd applicants were to relinquish 1 kg of the 5 kg of gold to the custody of the 3rd applicant. The 3rd respondent witnessed the transaction. The respondents alleged the applicants failed to meet their obligations under the agreement. The applicants filed a defence and this application seeking to refer the dispute to arbitration under the arbitration clause in the agreement.

Issues

  1. 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.
  2. 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 shall be in the decision of the arbitral tribunal.

Rules and key headnotes

Arbitration Agreement — Referral to Arbitration — Mandatory Nature of Section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act
Where proceedings are brought in a matter which is the subject of an arbitration agreement, the court is mandatorily required to refer the matter to arbitration if a party so applies after filing a statement of defence, unless the court finds that the arbitration agreement is null and void, inoperative, or incapable of being performed.
Arbitration Agreement — Party Autonomy — Court Jurisdiction Limited by Valid Arbitration Agreement
The unlimited jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 139(1) of the Constitution is not unfettered and may be circumscribed by statutory provision, including arbitration agreements created under the authority of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Where parties have consciously agreed to settle disputes outside of court through arbitration, the court must respect party autonomy and refer the dispute to arbitration.
Arbitration Agreement — Non-Signatory Parties — Jurisdictional Claims Determined by Arbitral Tribunal
Where a dispute involves parties who may not be signatories to an arbitration agreement, questions of whether non-signatory parties are bound by the arbitration agreement (through theories such as incorporation by reference, assignment, agency, alter ego/group of companies, or estoppel) are jurisdictional matters to be determined by a duly constituted arbitral tribunal rather than by the court at the referral stage.
Arbitration Clause — Interpretation — Scope of Disputes Covered
An arbitration clause providing that any dispute arising out of or in connection with an agreement, or related to any agreement concluded as a result of that agreement, shall be settled by arbitration covers all disputes that fall within its scope and must be construed according to its language and in light of the circumstances in which it was made.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (12)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Access Mobility International Limited and Others v Dcoin Branch of Danat Gulf Company for General Trading Limited and Others (Miscellaneous Application 2109 of 2025) [2026] UGCommC
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.