Ghebremichal & Anor v Bibangamba (Civil Suit No. 628 of 2018)
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 dismissed the suit as premature on three grounds: the parties' tenancy agreement contained a mandatory arbitration clause requiring disputes to be resolved by arbitration before litigation; the defendant was not properly served with the plaint as the affidavit of service failed to state that the person served was known to the process server or identify who witnessed service; and the tenancy agreement attached to the plaint did not bear evidence of stamp duty payment as required by section 42 of the Stamps Act, rendering it inadmissible. The court referred the parties to arbitration under clause 9(d) of their tenancy agreement.
Outcome
Suit dismissed and matter referred to arbitration
Facts
The plaintiffs sued the defendant based on a tenancy agreement. Before directions could be given, the defendant raised preliminary objections arguing that: (1) the tenancy agreement contained an arbitration clause requiring parties to first pursue arbitration; (2) the defendant had not been properly served with the plaint; (3) the tenancy agreement attached to the plaint did not bear evidence of stamp duty payment; and (4) the plaintiffs, being foreigners, should have deposited security for costs. The plaintiffs responded that the arbitration process had failed, that service had been effected, that the stamp duty objection was premature, and that requiring security for costs would be discriminatory. The affidavit of service showed that a process server served a person identified only as 'Daniel' at Holiday Express Hotel without stating prior knowledge of that person or providing the name and address of an identifying witness.
Issues
- Whether the suit should be dismissed for failure to first pursue arbitration as required by clause 9(d) of the tenancy agreement between the parties.
- Whether the defendant was properly served with the plaint in accordance with Order 5 rule 16 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
- Whether the tenancy agreement relied upon by the plaintiffs could be admitted in evidence without bearing stamp duty as required by section 42 of the Stamps Act.
- Whether the plaintiffs, being foreigners, were required to deposit security for costs before instituting the suit.
Orders
- The preliminary objection raised by the defendant is allowed.
- The suit is dismissed with costs to the defendant.
- The dispute between the parties is referred for arbitration in accordance with clause 9(d) of the tenancy agreement between the two parties.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (4)
Cases cited (6)
- Makula International Ltd v His Eminence Cardinal Nsubuga and Another (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1981)
- Proline Soccer Academy Ltd v Lawrence Mulindwa and Others (HCMA No. 459 of 2009)
- Kensington Africa Limited v Pankajkumar Hemraj Shah and Another (HCMA No. 687 of 2012)
- Power and City Contractors Ltd v LTL Project (Pvt) Ltd (MA No. 62 of 2011)
- The Bremer Vulcan [1981] 1 Lloyd's Rep 253
- The Hannah Blumenthal [1983] 1 Lloyd's Rep 103
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.