Mbabazi v Equity Bank Uganda Limited (Miscellaneous Application 1599 of 2021)
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 held that where parties have agreed to an arbitration clause in their contract, disputes arising from that agreement must be referred to arbitration. Civil Suit 499 of 2021 lapsed as the entire dispute was referred for resolution through arbitration in accordance with the Merchant Services Agreement endorsed by the parties in 2014. The matter can only return to court for appellate or supervisory interventions as provided under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
Outcome
Civil suit lapsed and matter referred to arbitration in accordance with the contractual arbitration clause
Facts
The applicant Ivan Mbabazi Batuma trading as Rushaga Golilla Camp and the respondent Equity Bank Uganda Limited had entered into a Merchant Services Agreement in 2014. Both parties brought to the court's attention the existence of an arbitration clause in that agreement which provided that any dispute arising from the agreement should be referred for final determination to one arbitrator appointed by agreement of the parties in accordance with the Arbitration Act. A civil suit (No. 499 of 2021) had been commenced between the parties, which gave rise to this miscellaneous application.
Issues
- Whether the court should refer the dispute to arbitration given the existence of an arbitration clause in the Merchant Services Agreement between the parties.
Orders
- The matter is referred for arbitration proceedings to ensue.
- Civil Suit 499 of 2021 lapses.
- Costs occasioned by commencing the suit in this Court shall be determined by the arbitral tribunal.
- The file shall be closed.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (2)
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act
- Arbitration Act No.5 of 1995
Cases cited (2)
- Lira Tobacco Stores HCMA 310/2073
- Daniel Delestre & Others v HiB Telecom (HCMA No. 310 of 2013)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.