Wakilii

Mugabi v Print Pak (U) Ltd (Civil Suit No. 910 of 1993)

High Court · [1994] UGHC 37 · 1994 Preliminary Objection Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Preliminary objection raised by defendant at commencement of hearing of civil suit
Decision
Preliminary objection dismissed; matter to proceed to hearing on the merits

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 an arbitration clause in a contract does not oust the jurisdiction of the court, but merely provides an alternative remedy. Even where jurisdiction is expressly excluded, a competent court retains jurisdiction. The plaintiff's choice to proceed by court action rather than arbitration does not render the suit premature. The preliminary objection was overruled.

Outcome

Preliminary objection dismissed; matter to proceed to hearing on the merits

Facts

The plaintiff instituted a civil suit based on a tenancy agreement. The defendant raised a preliminary objection at the commencement of the hearing, arguing that the tenancy agreement contained an arbitration clause requiring disputes to be referred to an arbitrator agreed upon by both parties. The defendant submitted that the suit was premature because the plaintiff had not first referred the matter to arbitration as provided in the agreement. The defendant relied on provisions in the Arbitration Act which, it argued, required matters subject to arbitration clauses to be referred to arbitration before court proceedings could be instituted. The plaintiff countered that the arbitration clause did not oust the jurisdiction of the court and that the plaintiff was entitled to choose court proceedings as an alternative remedy.

Issues

  1. Whether a suit instituted without first referring the matter to arbitration pursuant to an arbitration clause in a tenancy agreement is premature and should be struck out.
  2. Whether an arbitration clause in an agreement ousts the jurisdiction of the High Court.

Orders

  • Preliminary objection overruled.

Rules and key headnotes

Arbitration Clauses — Effect on Court Jurisdiction
An arbitration clause in a contract does not oust the jurisdiction of the High Court over disputes arising under that contract, but merely provides an alternative remedial forum.
Preliminary Objections — Prematurity of Suit
A suit is not premature merely because the plaintiff chose to proceed by court action rather than by arbitration under an arbitration clause in the underlying agreement.
Ouster of Jurisdiction — Express Provision Required
For a statute to oust the jurisdiction of the High Court, it must do so expressly, or the inference of ouster must be irresistible from the words of the statute. Under the Constitution and the Judicature Act, the High Court has unlimited original jurisdiction over all civil and criminal matters subject to any written law.
Arbitration Act — Section 17 — Stay of Proceedings
Section 17 of the Arbitration Act confers a discretion on the court, upon application by a party where there is an arbitration clause, to order a stay of proceedings to enable the matter to be submitted to arbitration. It does not mandate dismissal or striking out of a suit as premature.

Legislation cited (3)

  • Arbitration Act Cap.55 s.17
  • Constitution of Uganda (jurisdiction provisions)
  • Judicature Act (jurisdiction provisions)

Cases cited (2)

  • Kayondo v Cooperative Bank Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 19 of 1991)
  • London Hospital v Jacob [1956] 2 All ER 603

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mugabi v Print Pak (U) Ltd (Civil Suit No. 910 of 1993) [1994] UGHC 37 (15 July 1994)
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.