Kaliisa John and Others v Cranes Associated Advocates and Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 056 of 2022)

Observed later treatment

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.

Holding

The High Court has no jurisdiction to intervene in matters governed by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act except as provided in that Act. Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act bars courts from intervening in arbitration matters. An application to disqualify counsel from representing parties in a pending arbitration arises from and is encompassed by the arbitration process itself and must be referred back to the arbitrators for determination at the preliminary meeting. The court cannot entertain such an application as it would constitute impermissible intervention in arbitration proceedings.

Outcome

Application dismissed and matter referred back to arbitration for determination by arbitrators

Facts

The 5th applicant, Wakiso City Slaughter (U) Limited, appointed the 1st respondent law firm as its attorney and company secretary in November 2019. During this retainer, the 1st respondent advised the company on disputes arising between the company and certain members. Subsequently, a dispute arose between the company and its members, leading to arbitration proceedings (CAD/ARB/22/2022). The 1st respondent then accepted instructions to represent the 2nd to 9th respondents (the members) in the same arbitration proceedings. The applicants sought to bar the 1st respondent from representing the 2nd to 9th respondents in the arbitration, alleging conflict of interest, breach of confidentiality, and that the lawyers would be potential witnesses. The applicants filed this miscellaneous cause in the High Court Commercial Division seeking orders to disqualify the 1st respondent from representing the opposing parties in the pending arbitration.

Issues

1. Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain an application to bar advocates from representing parties in a pending arbitration proceeding.
2. Whether the 1st respondent law firm is conflicted in acting for the 2nd to 9th respondents in arbitration proceedings.
3. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

• Application dismissed.
• Matter referred back for arbitration.
• The objection as to representation by the 1st respondent may be raised at the preliminary meeting and should be handled by the arbitrators.
• Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (9)

• Arbitration and Conciliation Act s.9
• Civil Procedure Act s.98
• Civil Procedure Act s.82
• Judicature Act s.33
• Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations r.9
• Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations r.10
• Civil Procedure Rules O.52 r.1
• Civil Procedure Rules O.52 r.2
• Civil Procedure Rules O.52 r.3

Cases cited (2)

• China Communication Construction Company Limited v Justus Kyabahwa (Miscellaneous Application No. 692 of 2019)
• National Social Security Fund and W.H. Ssentongo T/A Ssentongo & Partners v Alcon International Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 02 of 2008)

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.

• Male and 9 Others v Mabirizi ( as a beneficiary to the estate of late father late mutumba) (Miscellaneous Application 112 of 2023)

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