Wakilii

Uganda Moslem Supreme Council v Yudaya & 2 Others & Ssewante v Yudaya & 3 Others (Miscellaneous Application 536 of 2024; Miscellaneous Application 541 of 2024; Miscellaneous Application 549 of 2024) [

High Court Review Application Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Consolidated review applications arising from High Court judgment in Company Cause No. 002 of 2023 concerning petition to wind up the Uganda Muslim Supreme Council
Decision
Judgment in Company Cause No. 002 of 2023 set aside; parties directed to pursue arbitration before the Muslim Arbitration and Conciliation Council (MAC); 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

Held that the High Court erred in failing to consider article 28 of the Uganda Muslim Supreme Council (UMSC) Constitution, which contains a valid arbitral clause requiring disputes among Muslims concerning the management of UMSC affairs to be resolved by the Muslim Arbitration and Conciliation Council (MAC). By bypassing the MAC and proceeding directly to court, the parties breached the arbitral clause. This constituted an error apparent on the face of the record sufficient to warrant review. The judgment in Company Cause No. 002 of 2023 was wholly set aside and parties were directed to pursue arbitration.

Outcome

Judgment in Company Cause No. 002 of 2023 set aside; parties directed to pursue arbitration before the Muslim Arbitration and Conciliation Council (MAC); all related applications dismissed

Facts

The Uganda Muslim Supreme Council (UMSC), a body governing Uganda's Muslim community since the 1970s, was the subject of a winding-up petition filed by three members (the respondents) in Company Cause No. 002 of 2023 at Jinja High Court. The petition alleged that the UMSC conducted its affairs prejudicially to petitioners and the Muslim community. On 12 December 2023, the court ordered a special sitting of the UMSC to review its affairs rather than dissolve it. Following that order, a general assembly was held on 30 November 2023, and a special general meeting on 16–17 December 2023 at Ggangu Muslim Primary School, where the Mufti was suspended and an acting Mufti sworn in. The UMSC subsequently filed multiple applications for review and stay of execution, arguing that the court's orders bypassed the UMSC's constitutional arbitration mechanism and resulted in procedural breaches. The applications were transferred from Jinja to the High Court Civil Division in Kampala and consolidated for hearing.

Issues

  1. Whether this court is vested with jurisdiction to hear the application for review.
  2. Whether the application presents sufficient grounds to justify review of the judgment delivered by the High Court in Company Cause No. 002 of 2023.
  3. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • The court is clothed with the requisite power to hear and determine the application for review and all consolidated motions connected with it.
  • In view of the 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.
  • The judgment and orders in Company Cause No. 002 of 2023 are hereby reviewed and wholly set aside.
  • All parties should explore 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 to resolve their disputes.
  • All related motions that either sought to challenge or implement any of the orders arising from Company Cause No. 002 of 2023 are hereby dismissed.
  • No order is made as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Review of Court's Own Decision — Order 46 Rule 1 CPR — Error Apparent on the Face of the Record
Under Order 46 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, a court may review its own decree where an error is apparent on the face of the record. An error apparent on the face of the record is an evident error that does not require extraneous matter to show its incorrectness; it must be manifest and clear such that no court could permit it to remain on the record.
Arbitration Clauses — Effect on Court Jurisdiction — Mandatory Referral to Arbitration
Where a valid arbitration clause exists in a contract or constitution, section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, Cap 5, requires courts to refer parties to arbitration in accordance with the principle of freedom of contract. The High Court's jurisdiction is not ousted, but courts are required as a matter of procedure to refer parties to the arbitral system agreed upon, unless the arbitral clause is invalid, the dispute falls outside the scope of the clause, or a party would be prejudiced by arbitration.
Arbitral Clauses in Religious Body Constitutions — Mandatory Dispute Resolution Through Internal Mechanisms
Where a religious body's constitution contains a broad arbitration clause requiring disputes among members concerning management, governance, and interests to be resolved by an internal arbitration council, courts must respect that clause and refer parties to the designated arbitral mechanism. Bypassing such internal dispute resolution mechanisms constitutes a procedural breach and an error on the face of the record justifying review of the court's judgment.
Jurisdiction of Courts — Religious Disputes — Religious Question Doctrine
Courts exercise delicacy when navigating religious disputes and apply the religious question doctrine where appropriate, recognising that secular courts are incapable of resolving theological disputes and that matters governed by internal religious rules and dispute resolution mechanisms should be resolved within those frameworks rather than by judicial intervention.
Review Applications — Scope of Review — Not an Appeal
When a court sits to review its own decision under Order 46 rule 1 CPR, it does not sit as an appellate court. The role of the reviewing court is limited to checking whether the conditions for review are satisfied and making the relevant and necessary rectifications and corrections. A review does not permit impeachment of a court's decision on grounds of wrong interpretation of law or wrong exercise of discretion.
Consolidation of Applications — Order 11 CPR — Avoiding Multiplicity of Litigation
Under Order 11 rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules, a court may on its own motion consolidate multiple related applications where consolidation is appropriate to avoid multiplicity of litigation and where the decision in the lead application can ably dispose of all related applications.

Legislation cited (16)

Cases cited (18)

  • Most Rev. Dr Samuel Kazimba Mugalu v Mazzi Joyce & 5 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 36 of 2023)
  • Rose v Jumo (HCT Arua Civil Revision No. 6 of 2015)
  • Bank of Uganda v Transroad Limited (Civil Appeal No. 3 of 1997)
  • Raphael Baku & Another v Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 2005)
  • Testimony Motors Ltd v Commissioner Customs URA (HCCS No. 4 of 2011)
  • Uganda Revenue Authority v M/s Robo Enterprises (U) Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2004)
  • Hoima District NGO Forum & 6 Others v Murungi Catherine & 5 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 13 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 per SSekana J
  • Yusuf v Nokrach (1971) EA 104
  • Touring Cars (K) Ltd v Munkanji [2000] 1EA 260
  • John Lubega & Paul Mbogo v UBC & Robert Kagoro (Miscellaneous Application No. 589 of 2019)
  • 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. 62 of 2011)
  • Huadar Guangdong Chinese Co. Ltd v Damco Logistics (U) Ltd (HCCS No. 4 & 5 of 2012)
  • Patrick Nkoba v Rwenzori Highland Tea Co & Another (1999) Kalr 776
  • 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 (Miscellaneous Application 536 of 2024; Miscellaneous Application 541 of 2024; Miscellaneous Application 549 of 2024) [
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.