Wakilii

Dr. Kaijamurubi v Jeremy (Civil Suit 48 of 3021)

High Court · [2023] UGHCCD 219 · 2023 Suit Dismissed — Matter Referred to Arbitration AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Preliminary objection on competence of suit in light of arbitration clause in lease agreement
Decision
Suit dismissed and matter referred to arbitration before ICAMEK to be concluded within 90 days

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 held that a valid and enforceable arbitration clause in a lease agreement binds the parties and requires referral to arbitration under section 5(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Where a party fails to respond to a notice of arbitration, the aggrieved party must apply to the appointing authority under section 11 rather than file suit in court. Section 9 does not oust court jurisdiction entirely but limits it to exceptions permitted by the Act. The suit was dismissed and the matter referred to arbitration.

Outcome

Suit dismissed and matter referred to arbitration before ICAMEK to be concluded within 90 days

Facts

The plaintiff sued the defendant for breach of a 99-year lease agreement dated 28 August 1967 over land in Kyenjojo District, claiming rent arrears for 31 years, repossession, interest, damages and costs. The lease was originally between the plaintiff's father (lessor) and the defendant's father (lessee). The defendant raised a preliminary objection that the suit was incompetent because the lease agreement contained an arbitration clause at clause 6. The plaintiff argued that in 2015 his former lawyers had invoked arbitration and appointed an arbitrator but the defendant ignored the process. The defendant denied the claim, stated rent had been paid to 2016, and counterclaimed for relief from forfeiture. The court was asked to determine whether the suit was competent in light of the arbitration clause.

Issues

  1. Whether Civil Suit No. 048 of 2021 is competent before this court in light of the arbitration clause in the lease agreement.
  2. Whether the arbitration agreement is null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed.
  3. Whether there is in fact any dispute between the parties with regard to the matters agreed to be referred to arbitration.

Orders

  • The parties are referred for arbitration in accordance with clause 6 of the lease agreement dated 28th August 1967.
  • The dispute shall be arbitrated by ICAMEK (International Centre for Arbitration and Mediation) which is a body of professional arbitrators and concluded within 90 days from the date of delivery of this ruling.
  • The costs of the suit shall abide the outcome of the arbitration.
  • Civil Suit No. 048 of 2021 is dismissed.

Rules and key headnotes

Arbitration and Conciliation Act — Section 9 — Ouster of Jurisdiction — Scope and Exceptions
Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act does not effect a blanket ouster of court jurisdiction but limits courts to exercising only the specific jurisdiction permitted under the Act, such as staying proceedings under section 5, granting interim relief under section 6, setting aside arbitral awards under section 34, and determining questions of law under section 38.
Arbitration and Conciliation Act — Section 5(1) — Referral to Arbitration — Mandatory Stay Unless Exceptions Apply
Where proceedings are brought in a matter subject to an arbitration agreement, the court must refer the matter to arbitration unless it finds that the arbitration agreement is null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed, or that there is in fact no dispute between the parties with regard to the matters agreed to be referred to arbitration.
Arbitration and Conciliation Act — Section 11 — Failure to Appoint Arbitrator — Remedy
Where a party fails to respond to a notice of appointment of arbitrators under an arbitration agreement, the aggrieved party must apply to the appointing authority (CADRE) under section 11(3), (4) and (5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to secure compliance with the arbitration procedure, rather than filing suit in court.
Arbitration Clauses — Binding Effect — Enforcement
A general arbitration clause in a contract providing that any dispute arising from the contract shall be referred to arbitration is valid, binding and enforceable against both parties, and must be given effect by the court by referring the dispute to arbitration rather than proceeding to trial.
Admission of Claim — What Constitutes Admission — Effect on Arbitration
An admission of a claim must be clear, precise and unambiguous and must not require explanation or extrinsic evidence. Where a defendant denies the plaintiff's claim and raises defences or a counterclaim, there is no admission and a dispute exists which must be referred to arbitration if the contract contains an arbitration clause.

Legislation cited (14)

Cases cited (4)

  • Babcon Uganda Limited v Mbale Resort Hotel Limited (Civil Appeal No. 87 of 2011)
  • Simba Properties Investment Co. Limited & Anor v Robert Kirunda and others (HCMA No. 671 of 2022)
  • Ambitious Construction Co. Ltd v Uganda National Cultural Centre (Civil MA No. 441 of 2020)
  • Simba & 4 others v Uganda Broadcasting Corporation (SCCA No. 3 of 2014)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Dr. Kaijamurubi v Jeremy (Civil Suit 48 of 3021) [2023] UGHCCD 219 (8 June 2023)
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.