Wakilii

Great Lakes Petroleum (U) Limited v Vivo Energy Uganda Limited (Miscellaneous Cause 133 of 2023)

High Court · [2023] UGCOMMC 149 · 2023 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for interim measure of protection pending arbitration under Section 6 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act
Decision
Application dismissed with costs to the Respondent

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 dismissed the application for interim measures of protection pending arbitration. The court held that the Applicant failed to establish a serious question to be arbitrated, as it did not adequately plead or demonstrate the basis for challenging the Respondent's contractual right to terminate the agreement. The Applicant also failed to show that it would suffer irreparable harm from eviction that could not be adequately compensated by damages, or that the balance of convenience favoured granting the order.

Outcome

Application dismissed with costs to the Respondent

Facts

On 30 April 2023, the Applicant entered into a three-year Retailing License Agreement with the Respondent to operate a convenience shop at Shell Kiira Mulawa Service Station. On 6 November 2023, the Respondent served notice of termination and eviction. The Applicant contended that Clause 26.3 of the agreement provides for disputes regarding termination to be referred to arbitration, and on 10 November 2023 notified the Respondent of its decision to trigger arbitration. The Respondent contended that under the agreement it was entitled to terminate without giving reasons by providing not less than ten days' notice, which it did, and that all rights and obligations ceased upon termination. The Applicant sought an interim measure of protection to restrain eviction pending arbitration.

Issues

  1. Whether the court should grant an interim measure of protection under Section 6 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to restrain the Respondent from evicting the Applicant pending arbitration.
  2. Whether the arbitration agreement in Clause 26 of the Retailing License Agreement is valid and enforceable.
  3. Whether there exists a dispute warranting a reference to arbitration and justifying the grant of interim protective measures.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs of the application awarded to the Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Interim Measures — Test for Granting Relief Pending Arbitration
When a court is called upon to grant injunctive relief as an interim measure of protection pending arbitral proceedings under Section 6 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the court will have regard to (a) whether there is a serious question to be arbitrated in respect of which the applicant demonstrates a sufficient likelihood of success; (b) whether there is an imminent risk of irreparable loss by considering whether damages are an adequate remedy; and (c) the balance of convenience, being the course of action that results in the lower risk of injustice if the decision is incorrect.
Competence-Competence — Arbitral Tribunal's Jurisdiction to Determine Validity of Arbitration Agreement
Section 16(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act codifies the competence-competence principle, empowering an arbitral tribunal to decide for itself whether it has jurisdiction over a particular dispute, including ruling on objections to the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement. Matters concerning the validity of an arbitration agreement are appropriately determined by the arbitral panel and do not form a basis for declining interim protective measures.
Interim Measures — Requirement to Demonstrate Serious Question to be Arbitrated
A serious question to be arbitrated is any question that is not frivolous or vexatious. The applicant need not satisfy the court that a permanent restraining order is probable at arbitration, but must show that the claim has a serious purpose and is not meritless on its face. Where an applicant fails to disclose sufficient facts making out a clear claim or does not indicate the legal basis for challenging conduct permitted by contract, the requirement of a serious question is not met.
Interim Measures — Irreparable Harm and Adequacy of Damages
Irreparable harm means injury that is substantial or material and cannot be adequately atoned for by way of damages. An interim restraining order will not be granted where damages are an adequate remedy. The applicant must adduce evidence showing how the impugned action will cause harm, such as by severely compromising its financial position, disconnecting it from intangible assets or client base, or forming part of a fraudulent scheme. Eviction from business premises without more does not establish irreparable harm.
Interim Orders — Balance of Convenience
In determining the balance of convenience for an interim order, the court must assess the harm to the applicant if the order is refused and the prejudice to the respondent if granted, and take the course that carries the lower risk of injustice if the decision proves wrong. The court should not grant an order that would compel parties to continue a contractual relationship one party has lawfully terminated, particularly where such order would flood the court with ongoing disputes while arbitration proceeds.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (17)

  • Polat Yol Yapi Sanventic SA v UNRA (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 3 of 2022)
  • Republic of Serbia v Imagesat International NV [2009] EWHC 2853 (Comm)
  • John Garuga Musinguzi and Another v Dr Chris Baryomunsi and Another (High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 817 of 2016)
  • Meera Investments Ltd and Others v Nelson Lukozi (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 339 of 2022)
  • Proline Soccer Academy v Commissioner Land Registration (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 494 of 2018)
  • UMEME Limited v Jane Nankabirwa (High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 154 of 2021)
  • Luwa Luwa Investment v URA (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 1336 of 2022)
  • Celcom Limited v Huwa & Ors. (Civil Appeal 8 of 2015) [Malawi HC]
  • China Henan International Cooperation Group Company Limited v Justus Kyabahwa (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 101 of 2021)
  • Night Nagujja v Namuwonge Agnes and Others (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 1878 of 2021)
  • Centenary Bank v Federation of Association of Uganda Exporters Limited and Others (High Court Civil Suit No. 474 of 2016)
  • Luswata Mary Veronica v Exim Bank (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 1118 of 2023)
  • Kisam Investments Limited v The Attorney General (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 742 of 2023)
  • Ssalongo Kakumba Bonny v Nyombi Eric (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 761 of 2021)
  • Uganda Debt Network v Ronald Sekyewa (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 1657 of 2023)
  • Hon Mohammed Katoto v Justus Kyabahwa (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 875 of 2023)
  • Donati Kananura v Tribet Rujugiro (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 1782 of 2022)

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.

Great Lakes Petroleum (U) Limited v Vivo Energy Uganda Limited (Miscellaneous Cause 133 of 2023) [2023] UGCommC 149 (14 December 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.