Wakilii

International Investiment House Company LLC & Anor v Nzei Amos & 2 Ors (Miscellaneous Application No. 22 of 1990)

High Court · [2012] UGCOMMC 173 · 2012 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Preliminary objection to an application for temporary injunction arising from a suit stayed pending arbitration
Decision
Application stayed pending arbitration. Applicants may file a fresh application under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

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 held that once a judge stays proceedings pending arbitration under section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the Registrar has no jurisdiction to entertain any further applications, and any such order is a nullity. The Court further held that applications for interim measures in arbitration matters must be made under section 6 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act by originating chamber summons, not as interlocutory applications under the Civil Procedure Rules pending determination of a stayed suit.

Outcome

Application stayed pending arbitration. Applicants may file a fresh application under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

Facts

The applicants filed a temporary injunction application under Civil Procedure Rules to restrain the respondents from implementing a rights issue pending determination of Civil Suit No. 73 of 2012. After an interim order was issued by consent on 29 February 2012, the respondents applied under section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to refer the dispute to arbitration in accordance with the parties' arbitration clause. The Court granted the application and stayed the suit pending arbitration on 27 March 2012. Subsequently, the Registrar extended the interim order on 13 April 2012 ex parte. When the temporary injunction application came for hearing on 25 April 2012, the respondents raised a preliminary objection challenging the Registrar's jurisdiction to extend the interim order after the stay, and challenging the competence of the temporary injunction application itself, arguing it should have been made under section 6 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act rather than the Civil Procedure Rules.

Issues

  1. Whether the learned Registrar had jurisdiction to extend the interim order issued on 2 April 2012 by consent of Counsels after the Court had referred the dispute to arbitration
  2. Whether the Court can hear an interlocutory application for a temporary injunction pending determination of the suit after the dispute has been referred to arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act

Orders

  • The Registrar's order extending the interim order dated 13 April 2012 is declared a nullity for lack of jurisdiction.
  • The application for a temporary injunction filed under the Civil Procedure Rules is stayed pending arbitration.
  • The applicants are not precluded from filing a fresh application under section 6 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
  • Costs of this application are to be included in matters to be considered by the arbitrators and will abide the outcome of the arbitration.

Rules and key headnotes

Arbitration and Conciliation Act — Stay of Proceedings — Effect on Pending Applications
A reference to arbitration under section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act operates as a stay of legal proceedings, and once a High Court judge has stayed proceedings pending arbitration, the Registrar has no jurisdiction to entertain any further application of any kind in the suit, including extending an interim order previously granted by consent.
Arbitration and Conciliation Act — Stay Orders — When Effective — Proceedings After Stay as Nullity
Stay orders are meant for the Court and not for litigants, and take effect as soon as they are passed irrespective of whether communicated. Where a Court proceeds with any proceedings after a stay order has been granted, such proceedings are deemed to be without jurisdiction and a nullity.
Arbitration and Conciliation Act Section 6 — Interim Measures of Protection — Proper Procedure
Applications for interim measures of protection under section 6 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act must be made by originating chamber summons in accordance with rule 13 of the Arbitration Rules under the first schedule to the Act, and not as interlocutory applications under the Civil Procedure Rules pending determination of a suit that has been stayed.
Arbitration and Conciliation Act Section 9 — Non-Intervention by Courts — Exceptions
Under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, courts shall not intervene in matters governed by the Act except as otherwise provided by the Act, and this mandatory provision requires that applications for interim relief in arbitration matters comply with the procedures stipulated in section 6 and the first schedule to the Act.
Civil Procedure Rules Order 41 Rule 2 — Inapplicability to Arbitration Proceedings
Order 41 rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which provides for temporary injunctions pending determination of a suit, is not applicable to proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, particularly applications for interim measures of protection under section 6, which must be made by originating chamber summons before or during arbitration proceedings rather than as interlocutory applications in a stayed suit.
Amendment of Pleadings — Wrong Citation of Law — When Relief Available
Where an application omits to cite any law at all or cites the wrong law, but the jurisdiction to grant the order sought exists, the irregularity or omission may be cured by amendment provided it is not of a fundamental nature and the applicant seeks to rectify the error timeously after objection is raised.
Constitutional Principle — Substantive Justice Without Undue Regard to Technicalities — Limits
Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution providing that substantive justice shall be administered without undue regard to technicalities is subject to law and is not a magical wand in the hands of defaulting litigants. The Legislature did not intend to do away with rules of procedure, and a litigant relying on this provision must satisfy the Court that in the circumstances it was not desirable to have undue regard to the relevant technicality.

Legislation cited (10)

Cases cited (7)

  • Ram Sujujh v State and Another (AIR 1962 ALL 80)
  • Saggu v Road Master Cycles [2002] EA 258
  • Nanjibhi Prabhudas and Company v Standard Chartered Bank [1968] 1 EA 670
  • Boyes v Gathure [1969] EA 385
  • Masaba v Republic [1967] EA 488
  • Utex Industries v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 52 of 1995)
  • Kasirye Byaruhanga & Co. Advocates v UDB (Civil Appeal No. 2 of 1997)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

International Investiment House Company LLC & Anor v Nzei Amos & 2 Ors (Miscellaneous Application No. 22 of 1990) [2012] UGCommC 173 (30 April 2012)
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.