Wakilii

Strabag International GmbH v Ukutulu Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 95 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGHC 754 · 2026 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Miscellaneous application to strike out civil suit and refer matter to arbitration
Decision
Civil suit struck out and matter referred to 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 held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the civil suit because the parties had agreed to arbitration under their contract. Under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act s.5, once a valid arbitration agreement exists, the court must refer the matter to arbitration. The arbitration clause survived the expiry of the main agreement under the doctrine of separability. The application was allowed, and the civil suit was struck out with costs.

Outcome

Civil suit struck out and matter referred to arbitration

Facts

The Respondent sued the Applicant and two others in Civil Suit No. 0042 of 2025, seeking a declaration that it was the lawful occupant of an Exploration License area in Adjumani and that the Defendants were trespassers. The parties had previously executed an Agreement to build and operate a stone quarry on 26 December 2020, which contained an arbitration clause providing that all disputes arising out of or in connection with the Agreement shall be submitted to the International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce. The Applicant brought a miscellaneous application to strike out the civil suit and refer the matter to arbitration. The Respondent objected, arguing that the Agreement had expired and that the Applicant lacked locus standi for not having filed a written statement of defence, though the court record showed a WSD had been validated.

Issues

  1. Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to hear HCCS No. 0042 of 2025 in light of the arbitration clause in the parties' agreement.

Orders

  • Application allowed with costs to the Respondent.
  • Civil Suit No. 0042 of 2025 struck out with costs to the Defendants.
  • Civil Appeal No. 010 of 2026 struck out as overtaken by events.
  • Order for temporary injunction in Miscellaneous Application No. 86 of 2025 vacated.

Rules and key headnotes

Arbitration and Conciliation Act — Referral to Arbitration — Mandatory Nature
Referral of a matter to arbitration under section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is mandatory and not at the discretion of the court or the parties once a valid arbitration agreement exists, unless the arbitration agreement is null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed, or there is no dispute between the parties.
Arbitration Clause — Doctrine of Separability — Survival After Expiry of Main Agreement
An arbitration clause is independent of the other terms of the contract and survives the expiry or invalidity of the main agreement under the doctrine of separability. The expiry of an agreement does not render an arbitration clause incapable of enforcement or inoperative.
Jurisdiction — Ouster by Arbitration Agreement
Once the court finds in existence a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement, its jurisdiction is ousted and the dispute must be sent for arbitration. The court's jurisdiction in arbitral matters is very limited by the specifications and restrictions set out in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
Requirements for Referral to Arbitration
To determine if a matter must be referred to arbitration, the court must consider whether: (a) there is a dispute; (b) the dispute is arbitrable; and (c) the dispute is governed by a valid and enforceable arbitral agreement.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (12)

  • Koboko District Local Government v Okujjo Swali (HCMA No. 001 of 2016)
  • Smile Communications Uganda Ltd v ATC Uganda (Arbitration Cause No. 4 of 2022)
  • Mwanguhya Johnson Kadama v Continanto Kabatooro Rwamasaka (Civil Appeal No. 337 of 2022)
  • Gordon Sentiba v IGG (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2008)
  • Harbour Assurance Versus Kansa General International Assurance Co. Ltd [1993] QB 70
  • Sanlam General Insurance (U) Ltd v Victoria Motors Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 41 of 2016)
  • Babcon Uganda Limited v Mbale Resort Hotel Limited (CACA No. 87 of 2011)
  • British American Tobacco v Lira Tobacco Stores (HCMA No. 924 of 2013)
  • ATC Uganda Ltd v Smile Communications Uganda Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 621 of 2023)
  • Fulgensius Mungereza v PricewaterhouseCoopers Africa Central (SCCA No. 18 of 2002)
  • British American Tobacco Ltd v Lira Tobacco Stores (HCMA No. 924 of 2013)
  • National Social Security Fund v Alcon International Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 02 of 2008)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Strabag International GmbH v Ukutulu Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 95 of 2025) [2026] UGHC 754 (6 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.