Festus Katerega T I A Quickway Auctioneers and Bailiffs and Another v Simba Properties Investment Co. Ltd and Another (Civil Application No. 1230 of 2023)
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 Court of Appeal held that the disputes underlying the High Court suit and application related to the existence, validity and consequences of mortgages created as collateral to a Mezzanine Term Facility Agreement, which were already the subject of ongoing arbitration. Under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, courts were interdicted from intervening in such matters. It followed that no right of appeal existed against the High Court's decision. Following Babcon Uganda Ltd v Mbale Resort Hotel Ltd, the Court struck out the notice of appeal with costs.
Outcome
Notice of appeal struck out with costs
Facts
The respondents filed High Court Civil Suit No. 424 of 2022 and Miscellaneous Application No. 671 of 2022, seeking a temporary injunction to restrain the applicants from selling or disposing of the respondents' properties that had been mortgaged to Vantage Mezzanine Fund II Partnership, pending determination of the suit. The respondents contended the mortgagee had been declared legally non-existent in an earlier High Court cause. The High Court (Mubiru, J.) found that the disputes related to the existence, validity, interpretation, performance, breach or termination of the mortgages created as collateral to the Mezzanine Term Facility Agreement were matters connected to that agreement and already the subject of ongoing arbitration. He held that under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, no court could intervene in such matters, and dismissed both the application and the underlying suit. The respondents filed a notice of appeal, which the applicants sought to strike out on the ground that no appeal lies against such a decision.
Issues
- Whether an appeal lies against a High Court decision dismissing proceedings on the basis of section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
- Whether the notice of appeal filed by the respondents should be struck out.
Orders
- The notice of appeal is struck out with costs.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (1)
Cases cited (2)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.