Wakilii

Eco Friendly Farming Ltd v Uganda Investiment Authority (Civil Suit No. 604 of 2014)

High Court · [2015] UGCOMMC 120 · 2015 Preliminary Objection Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Ruling on preliminary objection to civil suit for breach of contract
Decision
Preliminary objection dismissed; matter to proceed to trial on the merits

Observed later treatment

Treatment recorded in citing cases followed in 1 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.

Good law Followed in 1 case and applied in 0 cases, with no adverse treatment recorded. 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 ruled that a previous dismissal on a preliminary objection without determination on the merits does not create res judicata. The word 'may' in Section 28(2) of the Investment Code Act makes arbitration optional, not mandatory. Where parties fail to agree on the mode or forum for arbitration, the plaintiff may proceed directly to the High Court under Section 28(4) without exhausting arbitration procedures. An Act of Parliament cannot oust the High Court's original jurisdiction absent constitutional amendment. The preliminary objection was overruled.

Outcome

Preliminary objection dismissed; matter to proceed to trial on the merits

Facts

The plaintiff brought Civil Suit No. 604 of 2014 against the defendant concerning a dispute between a foreign investor and the Uganda Investment Authority. The defendant raised a preliminary objection arguing the suit was res judicata because the same parties had previously litigated the same matter in HCCS No. 387 of 2009, which was dismissed as premature for failure to first proceed under Section 28 of the Investment Code Act requiring arbitration. The defendant argued the plaintiff still had not complied with the mandatory arbitration requirement under Section 28. The plaintiff responded that after the earlier dismissal, it attempted to initiate arbitration but the defendant insisted on ICSID arbitration, leading to a failure to agree on the forum. The plaintiff argued that Section 28 uses permissive language and does not oust the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction, and that where parties cannot agree on arbitration, Section 28(4) allows recourse to the High Court.

Issues

  1. Whether the present suit is res judicata based on the prior dismissal of HCCS No. 387 of 2009.
  2. Whether Section 28 of the Investment Code Act imposes a mandatory obligation on parties to submit disputes to arbitration before approaching the High Court.

Orders

  • Preliminary objection overruled.
  • Costs in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Res Judicata — Effect of Dismissal on Preliminary Objection
A dismissal of a suit on a preliminary objection not based on the merits of the case does not bar a subsequent suit on the same facts and issues between the same parties, as the plaintiff has not had an opportunity to be heard on the merits and the matter is therefore not res judicata.
Interpretation of 'May' — Permissive vs Mandatory Language
The word 'may' in a statute implies a permissive, optional or discretionary act and is not mandatory. It is the opposite of 'shall' which is generally imperative or mandatory.
Investment Code Act s.28 — Arbitration Not Mandatory
Section 28(2) of the Investment Code Act uses the word 'may' and therefore does not impose a mandatory obligation on parties to a dispute between a foreign investor and the Investment Authority to submit the dispute to arbitration before approaching the High Court.
High Court Jurisdiction — Constitutional Protection
An Act of Parliament cannot oust the original and unlimited jurisdiction of the High Court conferred by Article 139(1) of the Constitution except by an amendment of the Constitution. A party aggrieved by a decision may choose either to pursue alternative dispute resolution mechanisms or file a suit directly in the High Court.
Investment Code Act s.28(4) — Failure to Agree on Arbitration
Where parties to a dispute under Section 28 of the Investment Code Act fail to agree on the mode or forum for arbitration, the matter falls within the ambit of Section 28(4) and the aggrieved party may proceed to the High Court for redress.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (6)

  • Commissioner General URA v Meera Investments Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 22 of 2007)
  • Uganda (DPP) v Col (Rtd) Kiiza Besigye (Constitutional Registration No. 20 of 2005)
  • Isaac Bab Busulwa v Ibrahim Kakinde (Civil Suit No. 1494 of 1977)
  • Keharchand v Jan Mohammed (1919-21) EACA 65
  • Raba Enterprises (U) Ltd and Elgon Hardware Ltd v Commissioner General Uganda Revenue Authority (Court of Appeal No. 51 of 2003)
  • Eco Friendly Farming Ltd v Uganda Investment Authority (Civil Suit No. 387 of 2009)

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.

Eco Friendly Farming Ltd v Uganda Investiment Authority (Civil Suit No. 604 of 2014) [2015] UGCommC 120 (4 September 2015)
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.