Wakilii

Uganda Moslem Supreme Council v Yudaya 2 Others Ssewante v Yudaya 3 Others [2025] UGHCCD 2

High Court · 2025 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of a High Court judgment granting special general meeting orders in a winding-up petition, consolidated with five related applications.
Decision
Judgment reviewed and set aside. Parties directed to arbitration under UMSC constitution. All related applications dismissed.

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 reviewed and set aside its earlier judgment that ordered a special general meeting of the Uganda Muslim Supreme Council, finding an error on the face of the record. The court held that the respondents had bypassed a mandatory arbitration clause in the UMSC constitution (article 28) which required all disputes relating to management of Muslim affairs to be resolved by the Muslim Arbitration and Conciliation Council (MAC) before resorting to court. The parties were directed to pursue arbitration as provided in the UMSC constitution.

Outcome

Judgment reviewed and set aside. Parties directed to arbitration under UMSC constitution. All related applications dismissed.

Facts

The Uganda Muslim Supreme Council (UMSC) is a body established in the 1970s to unify Uganda's Muslim community. The respondents filed Company Cause No. 002 of 2023 seeking to wind up the UMSC, alleging the manner in which it conducted its affairs was prejudicial. The High Court at Jinja declined to wind up the UMSC but instead ordered it to convene a special general meeting to address irregularities. The UMSC held a general assembly on 30 November 2023 and a special general meeting on 16-17 December 2023, which suspended the Mufti and appointed an acting Mufti. The UMSC then applied to review the judgment, arguing it contained errors. The UMSC constitution contains an arbitration clause (article 28) establishing the Muslim Arbitration and Conciliation Council (MAC) with jurisdiction over all disputes relating to UMSC management except electoral matters. The respondents had bypassed this arbitral mechanism and proceeded directly to court.

Issues

  1. Is this court vested with jurisdiction to hear the application?
  2. Does the application present sufficient grounds to justify the review of the judgment delivered by this court in Company Cause No. 002 of 2023?
  3. What remedies are available?

Orders

  • This court is clothed with the requisite power to hear and determine the application for review and all the consolidated motions that are connected with it.
  • In view of a clear arbitral clause embedded in article 28 of the UMSC constitution, a clear error on the face of the record emerges which must be corrected by this court.
  • This court hereby reviews and wholly sets aside the judgment and orders in Company Cause No. 002 of 2023 for the reason already given.
  • All the parties concerned should consider exploring the arbitral role of the MAC in terms of section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, Cap 5, and article 28 of the UMSC constitution in order to resolve their disputes.
  • All related motions that either sought to challenge or implement any of the orders of this court arising from Company Cause No. 002 of 2023 are hereby dismissed.
  • No order is made as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Arbitration Clauses — Mandatory Arbitration — Effect on Court Jurisdiction
Where parties have agreed to a valid arbitration clause requiring disputes to be resolved through arbitration, the High Court is required as a matter of procedure to refer the parties to the arbitral system in accordance with the principle of freedom of contract, unless valid reasons exist not to subject the parties to arbitration.
Review — Error Apparent on Face of Record — Failure to Consider Arbitration Clause
An error apparent on the face of the record exists where the court fails to consider a clear and valid arbitration clause in the governing constitution of a party, thereby allowing parties to bypass mandatory alternative dispute resolution mechanisms established by their agreement.
Winding Up — Religious Organisations — Internal Dispute Resolution Mechanisms
Where a religious organisation's constitution establishes internal dispute resolution mechanisms for governance disputes, parties must exhaust those mechanisms before seeking court intervention to wind up the organisation, particularly where the constitution contains a comprehensive arbitration clause.
Review — Scope — Court Reviewing Own Decision
When a court sits to review its own decision under Order 46 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, it does not sit as an appellate court but is limited to checking whether the conditions for review have been complied with and making relevant and necessary rectifications and corrections. A review cannot be granted merely because a decision is procedurally wrong or presents evidence of wrong application of law.
Religious Organisations — Judicial Intervention — Religious Question Doctrine
Courts exercise delicacy when navigating religious disputes and try to ensure that tensions are not aggravated. Where religious organisations have established internal governance structures blending with secular laws, courts should respect internal dispute resolution mechanisms rooted in the organisation's constitution.

Legislation cited (22)

Cases cited (18)

  • Most Rev. Dr Samuel Kazimba Mugalu v Mazzi Joyce and 5 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 36 of 2023)
  • Rose v Jumo (HCT Criminal Revision No. 0006 of 2015)
  • Bank of Uganda v Transroad Limited (Civil Appeal No. 3 of 1997)
  • Raphael Baku and Another v Attorney General (Supreme Court Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 2005)
  • Testimony Motors Ltd v Commissioner Customs URA (HCCS No. 004 of 2011)
  • Uganda Revenue Authority v M/s Robo Enterprises (U) Ltd (SCCA No. 12 of 2004)
  • Hoima District NGO Forum and 6 Others v Murungi Catherine and 5 Others (Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 0013 of 2013)
  • Mapalala v Bristish Broad Casting Co-operation [2002] 1 E.A 132 (Court of Appeal of Tanzania)
  • Kampala Capital City Authority v Nibimara Charlese & 10 Ors
  • Touring Cars (K) Ltd v Munkanji [2000] 1EA 260
  • John Lubega and Paul Mbogo v UBC and Robert Kagoro (HCMA No. 589 of 2019)
  • Yusuf v Nokrach (1971) EA 104
  • EADB v Ziwa Horticultural Exporters Ltd [1997-2000] UCLR 247
  • BankOne Limited v Simbamanyo Estates Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 645 of 2020)
  • Power and City Contractors Ltd v LTL Projects (PVI) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 0062 of 2011)
  • Huadar Guangdong Chinese Co. Ltd v Damco Logistics (U) Ltd (HCCS No. 4 and 5 of 2012)
  • Patrick Nkoba v Rwenzori Highland Tea Co & Another (1999) Kalr 776 at 778
  • Ssempebwa & Ors v Attorney General [2019] 1 EA 549

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda Moslem Supreme Council v Yudaya 2 Others Ssewante v Yudaya 3 Others 2025 UGHCCD 2 (3 January 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.