Wakilii

Sanlam General Insurance (U) Ltd v Victoria Motors Ltd & Anor (Miscellaneous Application No. 41 of 2016)

High Court · [2016] UGCOMMC 21 · 2016 Matter Referred to Arbitration AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to amend statement of claim arising from civil suit, opposed on jurisdictional grounds due to arbitration clause
Decision
Matter referred to arbitration; suit abated

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 it had no jurisdiction to hear an application for amendment of the plaint where the underlying dispute—the amount of outstanding insurance premiums—was subject to a mandatory arbitration clause. The arbitration clause covered all differences as to amounts payable arising from the policy, including disputes involving interpretation of contract terms that affect the quantum due. The court referred the matter to arbitration under section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, and the pending suit abated.

Outcome

Matter referred to arbitration; suit abated

Facts

The Applicant, an insurance company, brought a civil suit against the Respondents claiming outstanding insurance premiums of UGX 750,558,532.62 (later amended to UGX 1,057,629,460.32). The Applicant and the first Respondent had executed an insurance policy for vehicles owned by the first Respondent during 2014 and 2015. The policy was subsequently cancelled, and a dispute arose as to how much was payable upon cancellation. The Applicant filed a miscellaneous application seeking leave to amend its statement of claim. The Respondents opposed the amendment application on jurisdictional grounds, arguing that clause 13 of the General Conditions of the insurance policy required all differences as to amounts payable to be referred to arbitration. The Respondents contended that there was a genuine dispute regarding the correct computation of the outstanding amount, involving issues of interpretation of the contract terms, particularly how premiums should be calculated upon cancellation of the policy and when vehicles had been written off due to accidents.

Issues

  1. Whether the court had jurisdiction to hear an application for amendment of the plaint where the underlying dispute was subject to an arbitration clause.
  2. Whether the dispute as to the amount of outstanding insurance premiums fell within the scope of the arbitration clause in clause 13 of the General Conditions of the insurance policy.
  3. Whether disputes relating to interpretation of the insurance policy contract were included within the arbitration clause or excluded from it.

Orders

  • The dispute is referred to arbitration under clause 13 of the General Conditions of Contract.
  • The parties shall commence the arbitration process as agreed in the contract.
  • The suit in the court abates.
  • Costs occasioned by filing the suit and applications in the court are referred to the arbitral tribunal for resolution.

Rules and key headnotes

Arbitration — Jurisdiction — Scope of Arbitration Clause — Mandatory Reference to Arbitration
Where parties have agreed to an arbitration clause requiring that all differences as to amounts payable arising out of a policy shall be referred to arbitration, and a dispute arises touching the quantum due, the court is bound under section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to refer the matter to arbitration. The court's powers are limited to determining whether the arbitration agreement is null and void, inoperative, or incapable of being performed, or whether there is in fact no dispute between the parties with regard to matters agreed to be referred to arbitration.
Arbitration — Scope of Arbitration Clause — Disputes as to Interpretation of Contract
An arbitration clause covering all differences as to amounts payable arising from a contract includes disputes involving the interpretation of contract terms that affect the quantum due. Where the issue relates to interpretation of the terms of the contract and affects the amount to be paid, it falls within the jurisdiction of an arbitrator appointed by the parties.
Arbitration — Construction of Arbitration Clause — Presumption of Rational Businessmen
In the construction of an arbitration clause, there is a presumption that the parties as rational businessmen intended any dispute to be referred to arbitration unless there is clear language indicating that disputes of a particular kind are subject to arbitration and others are not. In the absence of clear words excluding questions of interpretation from the arbitration clause, the arbitrator has jurisdiction over such questions.
Arbitration — Effect of Reference to Arbitration — Abatement of Suit
Where the court orders that a dispute embodied in proceedings before it be referred to arbitration under section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the pending suit abates. The High Court retains appellate and supervisory powers over the arbitral proceedings under sections 16, 27, 34, and 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
Civil Procedure — Preliminary Objections — Jurisdiction — Arbitration Clause
A party may raise an objection to the court's jurisdiction on the ground of an arbitration clause at any time after filing a written statement of defence. The filing of a written statement of defence does not operate as a waiver of the right to apply for reference of the matter to arbitration under section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

Legislation cited (13)

Cases cited (6)

  • British American Tobacco v Lira Tobacco Stores (HCMA No. 924 of 2013)
  • Yan Jian Uganda Co Ltd v Siwa Builders and Engineers (HCMA No. 1147 of 2014)
  • George Omondi and 210 Others vs. Pension Fund and Retirements Benefits Authority Kenyan Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 5 of 2014
  • Premium Nafta Products Ltd and Others v Fili Shipping Co Ltd and Others [2007] UKHL 40
  • Heyman and Another v Darwins Ltd [1942] 1 All ER 337
  • Daniel Delestre and Others v Hits Telecom (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 310 of 2013)

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.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Sanlam General Insurance (U) Ltd v Victoria Motors Ltd & Anor (Miscellaneous Application No. 41 of 2016) [2016] UGCommC 21 (14 March 2016)
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.