Wakilii

Mwesigye Sam v Mugarura Peter [2025] UGCOMMC 558

High Court · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of High Court ruling that set aside an arbitral award
Decision
Application dismissed; arbitral award remains set aside

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 lacks jurisdiction to review its own decision made under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, as a special statute, ousts the general review jurisdiction under Section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act in arbitration matters. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act does not provide for review of judicial decisions setting aside arbitral awards. The application was dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Outcome

Application dismissed; arbitral award remains set aside

Facts

The applicant and respondent entered into a land sale agreement for UGX 175,320,000 payable in instalments. Disputes arose over payment and third-party claims, leading to arbitration. The arbitrator awarded the applicant UGX 70,000,000 as outstanding purchase price, general damages of UGX 250,000,000, interest at 20% per annum, and costs. The respondent successfully applied to set aside the award on public policy grounds in Miscellaneous Cause No. 0152 of 2023, with the court finding the arbitrator had made findings inconsistent with an existing High Court judgment in Civil Suit No. 244 of 2008. The applicant then sought review of that set-aside order, arguing the court misinterpreted the arbitral award and that there was an error apparent on the face of the record.

Issues

  1. Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to review its decision setting aside an arbitral award.
  2. Whether the arbitral award in DCCL/ARB/01/2023 should be reinstated.
  3. Whether the arbitral award should be enforced by the Court.

Orders

  • This Court lacks jurisdiction to review its own decision made under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
  • The Application does not disclose an error apparent on the face of the record.
  • The prayer for reinstatement of the arbitral award consequently fails.
  • The Application is accordingly dismissed with costs to the Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Arbitration & ADR — Judicial Review of Arbitral Awards — Limits on Court Intervention — Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act
Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act bars courts from intervening in arbitration matters except as specifically provided in the Act. This statutory ouster clause protects the finality and party autonomy in arbitration by preventing judicial interference with the arbitral process or the merits of an arbitrator's decision beyond the Act's specified remedies.
Arbitration & ADR — Review of Court Decisions Setting Aside Awards — Jurisdiction
The High Court lacks jurisdiction to review its own decision made under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act setting aside an arbitral award. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act does not provide for review of judicial decisions concerning arbitral awards, and Section 9 of that Act ousts the general review jurisdiction under Section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act in arbitration matters.
Statutory Interpretation — Special Statute vs General Statute — Lex Specialis Principle
Where a special statute and a general statute both purport to govern the same subject matter, the special statute prevails. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, being a special and later statute creating a self-contained legal framework for arbitration, takes precedence over the general provisions of the Civil Procedure Act in arbitration matters.
Civil Procedure — Review of Judgments — Error Apparent on Face of Record
An error apparent on the face of the record must be an evident error which does not require any extraneous matter to show its incorrectness. It must be so manifest and clear that no court would permit such an error to remain on the record. A complaint concerning the court's interpretation of evidence or findings that would require re-appraisal of the record does not constitute an error apparent on the face of the record.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (3)

  • Babcon Uganda Limited v Mbale Resort Hotel Ltd (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 87 of 2011)
  • China Communications Construction Co. Ltd v Justus Kyabahwa (Miscellaneous Application No. 692 of 2019)
  • Edison Kanyabwera v Pastori Tumwebaza (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2004)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mwesigye Sam v Mugarura Peter 2025 UGCommC 558 (21 November 2025)
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.