Wakilii

Simba Properties Investment Ltd and Another v Vantage Mezzanine Fund II Partnership and Another (Civil Application No. 1299 of 2023)

Court of Appeal · [2025] UGCA 266 · 2025 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application before a single Justice of the Court of Appeal for a stay of High Court proceedings pending the hearing of an application for leave to appeal.
Decision
Stay of proceedings granted in High Court Arbitration Cause No. 0072 of 2023 pending the hearing and determination of the application for leave to appeal (Civil Application No. 1295 of 2023).

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 3 (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 3 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Citations rising — 3 citing cases on record, 3 in the most recent three data years. 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

Sitting as a single Justice, the Court overruled all three preliminary objections. It held that it had jurisdiction because the High Court order under appeal was made under the Civil Procedure Act and Judicature Act, not the Arbitration and Conciliation Act; that the competence of a Notice of Appeal can only be decided by a full bench under Rule 53, not a single Justice; and that citing the wrong enabling law did not vitiate the application. On the merits, although the applicants failed to prove irreparable damage because the dispute was monetary and quantifiable, the Court found a prima facie right of appeal and that the pending appeal would be rendered nugatory, and granted a stay of proceedings.

Outcome

Stay of proceedings granted in High Court Arbitration Cause No. 0072 of 2023 pending the hearing and determination of the application for leave to appeal (Civil Application No. 1295 of 2023).

Facts

Under a Mezzanine Term Facility Agreement dated 11 December 2014, the first respondent advanced USD 10,000,000 to the first applicant, secured by corporate guarantees and legal and equitable mortgages over land. Following default, the dispute was referred to ICC arbitration in London, and on 31 July 2023 the sole arbitrator rendered an award in the first respondent's favour. The first respondent filed High Court Arbitration Cause No. 0072 of 2023 to recognise and enforce the award, and Misc. Application No. 2484 of 2023 seeking interim measures of protection restraining dealings with the mortgaged titles. On 17 November 2023, Hon. Justice Ocaya Thomas granted protective orders, finding the Arbitration and Conciliation Act inapplicable and that the application lay under the Civil Procedure Act and Judicature Act. Aggrieved, the applicants filed a Notice of Appeal and sought leave to appeal, and brought the present application to stay the enforcement proceedings.

Issues

  1. Whether the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to entertain the application given that the underlying matters arise from the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
  2. Whether the competence of the applicants' Notice of Appeal can be determined by a single Justice of the Court of Appeal.
  3. Whether the application was incompetent for being brought under the wrong enabling provisions of the law.
  4. Whether the applicant established a prima facie case of a right of appeal or likelihood of success.
  5. Whether the applicant would suffer irreparable damage or the appeal would be rendered nugatory if a stay of proceedings was not granted.

Orders

  • An order of stay of proceedings is issued in High Court Arbitration Cause No. 0072 of 2023 (Vantage Mezzanine Fund II Partnership & Anor v Simba Properties Investment Co. Limited & Ors) pending the hearing, determination and final disposal of the applicants' application for leave to appeal vide Civil Application No. 1295 of 2023.
  • Costs of the application will abide the determination of Civil Application No. 1295 of 2023.

Rules and key headnotes

Arbitration & ADR — Court Intervention — Jurisdiction over orders made under the Civil Procedure Act rather than the Arbitration and Conciliation Act
Where a High Court order granting interim measures of protection is made under Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act and Section 33 of the Judicature Act, and not under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the Court of Appeal retains jurisdiction to entertain an application arising from that order notwithstanding the bar in Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act on court intervention in arbitral matters.
Civil Procedure — Notice of Appeal — Competence to be determined by a full bench, not a single Justice
The competence of a Notice of Appeal can only be determined by a full bench of three Justices of the Court of Appeal under Rule 53 of the Court of Appeal Rules; a single Justice lacks jurisdiction to decide it, and the proper course for a challenger is an application to strike out the notice under Rule 82.
Civil Procedure — Notice of Motion — Effect of citing the wrong enabling provision of law
The citation of a wrong provision of law in a notice of motion does not by itself render the application incompetent where the orders sought are clear from the body of the motion, justice being administered without undue regard to technicalities under Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Proceedings — Conditions for grant
An applicant for a stay of proceedings under Rule 6(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules must establish a prima facie case of a right of appeal or a likelihood of success, and that irreparable damage will be suffered or the appeal rendered nugatory if the stay is refused; where these two conditions are satisfied the court need not consider where the balance of convenience lies.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Proceedings — Nugatory appeal as an independent ground
Even where an applicant fails to establish irreparable damage because the dispute is monetary and capable of being compensated in ascertained damages, a stay of proceedings may still be granted where refusing it would render a pending and already-heard appeal nugatory.

Legislation cited (12)

Cases cited (23)

Cases citing this judgment (3)

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.

Simba Properties Investment Ltd and Another v Vantage Mezzanine Fund II Partnership and Another (Civil Application No. 1299 of 2023) [2025] UGCA 266 (8 August 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.