Wakilii

Core Minerals Geologists Limited & 3 Others v Zhou (Miscellaneous Application 1164 of 2024)

High Court · [2024] UGCOMMC 340 · 2024 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to dismiss underlying civil suit for want of jurisdiction due to arbitration clause
Decision
Underlying civil suit dismissed for want of jurisdiction; matter referred to arbitration

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 Commercial Division dismissed the underlying civil suit for want of jurisdiction. The court found that the dispute fell within the scope of an arbitration clause in the agency contract between the parties, which required disputes arising from the contract to be resolved through arbitration in Uganda. Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act divested the court of jurisdiction. The court also struck off the respondent's affidavit in reply as incompetent because it was sworn before a commissioner for oaths in Kenya rather than one of the officials specified in Section 84(c) of the Evidence Act.

Outcome

Underlying civil suit dismissed for want of jurisdiction; matter referred to arbitration

Facts

On 15 February 2016, the respondent was appointed as agent of the 1st applicant to secure buyers for gold. The parties signed a contract containing an arbitration clause providing that disputes would be settled by arbitration in Uganda. The respondent introduced the applicants to a Chinese buyer, Ben Gang Financial Leasing Co. Ltd. The respondent claimed he advanced USD 245,000 to enable transport of 100 kilograms of gold to China, but the applicants failed to deliver the gold. The respondent filed Civil Suit No. 0915 of 2018 seeking to recover the USD 245,000. The applicants sought to dismiss the suit arguing it was subject to the mandatory arbitration clause in their agency contract.

Issues

  1. Whether the Respondent's affidavit in reply is competent.
  2. Whether this Court has jurisdiction to entertain, hear and determine Civil Suit No. 0915 of 2018.
  3. Whether the Respondent's plaint in Civil Suit No. 0915 of 2018 discloses a cause of action against the 2nd - 4th Applicants.
  4. What reliefs are available to the parties.

Orders

  • The Respondent's affidavit in reply is hereby struck off the record.
  • This application is hereby allowed.
  • Civil Suit No. 0915 of 2018 is hereby dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
  • Costs of Civil Suit No. 0915 of 2018 and of this application are awarded to the Applicants.

Rules and key headnotes

Arbitration — Jurisdiction — Effect of Arbitration Agreement on Court Jurisdiction
Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act divests courts of jurisdiction to entertain matters subject to arbitration agreements except as expressly provided in the Act.
Agency — Disputes Arising from Performance of Agency Contract — Arbitration
Where an agent extends money to the principal to facilitate performance of the agency contract (securing buyers and completing sales), disputes concerning non-repayment of that money arise from the agency contract and fall within the scope of an arbitration clause covering disputes arising from or affecting transactions under the contract.
Evidence — Affidavits Sworn Abroad — Notarization Requirements
An affidavit sworn in a Commonwealth country in Africa must be taken before a notary public, resident magistrate, permanent head of government department, resident commissioner or assistant commissioner as specified in Section 84(c) of the Evidence Act to benefit from the presumption of proper execution and authentication. An affidavit sworn before a commissioner for oaths not expressly listed in Section 84(c) does not benefit from the presumption, and the party relying on it must prove under Section 12(1) of the Oaths Act that the person before whom it was taken was duly authorised under the law of that country.
Affidavits — Defective Notarization — Effect
An affidavit not properly commissioned or notarised is not an affidavit in law. The requirement to commission or notarise affidavits is one of substance, not mere form, and a defect in notarization goes to the root of the affidavit, undermining the reliability of the oath and the veracity of the evidence. Such an affidavit must be struck off the record.
Agency — Contracts Signed by Agent — Applicability of Terms to Agent Personally
Where an agent signs a contract on behalf of a disclosed principal, the agent is not a party to that contract in his own right and is not bound by clauses in that contract (including arbitration clauses) unless he intended to be personally liable.

Legislation cited (10)

Cases cited (3)

  • J. B. Magara v Katehangwa (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 143 of 2000)
  • EAA Company Limited v Uganda National Bureau of Standards (High Court Consolidated Miscellaneous Applications No. 965 and 1009 of 2023)
  • Desai v Warsama (1967) EA 351

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Core Minerals Geologists Limited & 3 Others v Zhou (Miscellaneous Application 1164 of 2024) [2024] UGCommC 340 (22 November 2024)
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.