Wakilii

Siia Global Impex Limited v Dharani Farida Raj (Miscellaneous Cause No. 30 of 2026)

High Court · [2026] UGCOMMC 358 · 2026 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for interim protection order under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act pending arbitration proceedings
Decision
Interim protection order granted; respondent restrained from evicting applicant or interfering with applicant's rights under the tenancy agreement pending completion of arbitration

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 granted an interim protection order restraining the respondent landlord from evicting the applicant tenant pending arbitration. The court held that a valid arbitration agreement existed under Clause 9 of the rental agreement, arbitration proceedings had been properly commenced, and administrative fee disputes did not terminate the arbitral process. The commercial nature of the dispute involving an industrial manufacturing operation, a USD 450,000 purchase option, and alleged USD 250,000 investment justified the Commercial Division's jurisdiction. Eviction would cause irreparable injury by destroying the applicant's manufacturing plant and rendering the arbitration nugatory.

Outcome

Interim protection order granted; respondent restrained from evicting applicant or interfering with applicant's rights under the tenancy agreement pending completion of arbitration

Facts

On 21 February 2025, the applicant tenant and respondent landlord executed a five-year rental agreement for industrial property at Plot 216, Block 191, Mukono. The agreement granted the applicant an absolute right to purchase the property for USD 450,000 within three years and included a mandatory arbitration clause. The applicant established a mattress manufacturing plant (SIIA Foam) employing 30 staff and invested approximately USD 250,000 in renovations and infrastructure. On 17 February 2026, the applicant exercised its purchase option. The respondent rejected the offer, claiming she signed the agreement in her personal capacity while the property belonged to her deceased husband's estate, for which she was administrator. On 2 March 2026, the respondent purported to terminate the agreement and demanded vacant possession within 14 days. The applicant commenced arbitration proceedings on 12 March 2026 before Dr. Robert Kirunda. The respondent claimed the arbitration terminated due to non-payment of fees and offered to sell the property directly under different terms.

Issues

  1. Whether there exist pending arbitration proceedings that warrant court protection under Section 6(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
  2. Whether the High Court Commercial Division has jurisdiction over this landlord-tenant dispute.
  3. Whether the Applicant has established a prima facie case for an interim protection order.
  4. Whether the Applicant will suffer irreparable injury if the order is not granted.
  5. Whether the balance of convenience favours the grant of an interim protection order.

Orders

  • An interim protection order is issued restraining the Respondent, her agents, servants, employees, assignees, and anyone claiming or deriving authority from her from interfering with the Applicant's rights under the Tenancy Agreement dated 21st February 2025.
  • The Respondent is restrained from evicting the Applicant from the premises situated at Plot No. 216, Block No. 191, opposite Seeta High School, Jinja Highway Road, Mbalala, Mukono.
  • This Interim Protection Order shall remain in force pending the final conclusion of the arbitration proceedings currently before the sole arbitrator, Dr. Robert Kirunda, or any other tribunal properly constituted under the parties' agreement.
  • Costs of this application shall abide the final outcome of the arbitration proceedings.

Rules and key headnotes

Arbitration — Interim Measures — Court's Power Under Section 6(1) Arbitration and Conciliation Act
Under Section 6(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act Cap 5, a party to an arbitration agreement may apply to court before or during arbitral proceedings for an interim measure of protection, and the court may grant that measure to preserve the subject matter of the dispute and prevent the arbitration from being rendered nugatory.
Arbitration — Commencement of Proceedings — Effect of Administrative Fee Disputes
Arbitration proceedings legally commence upon service of a Notice of Arbitration pursuant to Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Administrative disputes over payment of arbitral fees do not extinguish arbitration proceedings, which are legally terminated only under conditions set out in Section 32 of the Act, typically through a final award or specific order of the tribunal. A party cannot unilaterally kill an arbitration by refusing to pay fees.
Arbitration — Prima Facie Case for Interim Relief — Test
In applications for interim protection under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the prima facie case standard does not require the court to delve into the ultimate merits of the contractual breach, but rather to confirm the existence of a valid arbitration agreement and a substantive dispute falling within its scope. The existence of an enforceable arbitration agreement constitutes a prima facie case for the purpose of seeking interim relief.
Arbitration — Doctrine of Separability — Validity of Arbitration Clause
Under the doctrine of separability, a challenge to the validity of the main contract does not negate the existence of the arbitration clause. Disputes regarding the validity or capacity to execute the underlying contract constitute substantive disputes which must be determined by the arbitrator, not the court on an application for interim relief.
Injunctions — Irreparable Injury — Industrial Operations and Unique Property Rights
Irreparable injury means substantial or material injury that cannot adequately be compensated for in damages. The loss of a running industrial manufacturing operation, including cessation of production, destruction of supply chains, displacement of employees, and loss of market presence, constitutes irreparable injury. Similarly, the loss of a specific industrial site where a party has invested substantial capital in reliance on a contractual right to purchase constitutes injury that money cannot adequately compensate.
Commercial Court Jurisdiction — High-Value Industrial Transactions
Where a landlord-tenant relationship involves the exercise of an absolute right to purchase for USD 450,000, alleged industrial investment of USD 250,000 in a manufacturing plant, and operation of an industrial concern with substantial employees, the dispute constitutes a substantive commercial transaction properly within the jurisdiction of the High Court Commercial Division, notwithstanding that the relationship began as a tenancy.
Contract — Sanctity of Contract — Non-Termination Clauses
Where parties of sound mind and competent legal standing enter into a detailed commercial agreement containing an express clause that the agreement cannot be terminated by either party under any conditions, the court must respect the clear intentions expressed in the document and hold parties to their contractual obligations, subject to resolution of disputes through the agreed dispute resolution mechanism.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (7)

  • GM Tumpeco (U) Ltd v AG and Another (HCMC No. 17 of 2023)
  • Swabri Ali Abubaker Mukungu v Kobil (U) Ltd (HCMC No. 41 of 2015)
  • Legal Brain Trust (LBT) v Attorney General (CACA 56 of 2023)
  • UBC v Appliance World Ltd (HCMA No. 1298 of 2021)
  • Kiyimba-Kaggwa Versus Haji Abdu Nasser Katende HCB 43
  • American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Limited [1975] AC 396
  • GAPCO Uganda Limited v Kaweesa and Another (H.C. Misc Application No. 259 of 2013)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Siia Global Impex Limited v Dharani Farida Raj (Miscellaneous Cause No. 30 of 2026) [2026] UGCommC 358 (29 July 2026)
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.