Download

Uganda Judgment

Commercial Court of Uganda

Mbabazi v Equity Bank Uganda Limited (Miscellaneous Application 1599 of 2021) [2023] UGCommC 237 (11 January 2023)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The existence of a clear arbitration clause in the Merchant Services Agreement between the parties requires that any dispute arising from the agreement be referred to arbitration. The court is bound to respect the parties' contractual choice of dispute resolution mechanism and, as such, the present suit lapses and the dispute is referred to arbitration. The court will only intervene in appellate or supervisory capacity as provided under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Costs incurred by commencing the suit in court will be determined by the arbitral tribunal.

Court disposition

Referred to arbitration; suit closed.

Orders

  • Civil Suit No. 499 of 2021 is referred to arbitration in accordance with the Merchant Services Agreement and the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
  • The issue of costs occasioned by commencing the suit in court is referred to the arbitral tribunal.
  • The file is closed.

02

Material facts

Parties

Ivan Mbabazi Batuma T/A Rushaga Gorilla Camp

Applicant

Equity Bank Uganda Limited

Respondent

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Miscellaneous Application / Ruling

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The applicant relied on the arbitration clause in the Merchant Services Agreement, arguing that any dispute arising from the agreement should be referred to arbitration as stipulated. The applicant cited relevant authorities supporting referral to arbitration where such a clause exists.
Respondent
The respondent concurred with the applicant regarding the existence of the arbitration clause and agreed that the dispute should be resolved through arbitration in accordance with the agreement and the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Arbitration and Conciliation Act (No. 5 of 1995)

    Where parties have agreed to resolve disputes through arbitration, courts must give effect to the arbitration agreement and refer the matter to arbitration.

  2. 02

    Merchant Services Agreement; Lira Tobacco Stores HCMA 310/2073; Daniel Delestre & Others v. HiB Telecom HCMA 310/2013

    The court's jurisdiction is ousted in matters where a valid arbitration agreement exists, except for appellate or supervisory interventions.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The existence of a clear arbitration clause in the Merchant Services Agreement between the parties requires that any dispute arising from the agreement be referred to arbitration. The court is bound to respect the parties' contractual choice of dispute resolution mechanism and, as such, the present suit lapses and the dispute is referred to arbitration. The court will only intervene in appellate or supervisory capacity as provided under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Costs incurred by commencing the suit in court will be determined by the arbitral tribunal.

Court disposition

Referred to arbitration; suit closed.

  • Civil Suit No. 499 of 2021 is referred to arbitration in accordance with the Merchant Services Agreement and the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
  • The issue of costs occasioned by commencing the suit in court is referred to the arbitral tribunal.
  • The file is closed.

Source and reliance status

Commercial Court of Uganda

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Source document

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

Commercial Court of Uganda

Judgment

[2023] UGCommC 237

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA (COMMERCIAL DIVISION)

MISC. APPLICATION NO. 1599 OF 2021 (ARISING FROM CIVIL SUIT NO. 499 OF 2021)

IVAN MBABAZI BATUMA

$\iota$

T/A RUSHAGA GOLILLA CAMP ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

VERSUS

EQUITY BANK UGANDA LIMITED ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

BEFORE: HON. LADY JUSTICE ANNA . B. MUGENYI

RULING

I have read the pleadings and the written submissions of the Applicant in this matter.

Both parties brought to the attention of this court the existence of an arbitral agreement /clause between the parties i.e. in the Merchant Services Agreement endorsed by both parties in 2014.

The Arbitration clause states:

"This Agreement shall be governed in all respects by Uganda law and card scheme rules and regulations under which the bank and merchant operates. The parties agree that any dispute arising from this agreement shall be referred for final determination to one arbitrator appointed by Agreement of the parties in accordance to the provisions of the Arbitration Act (No.5 of 1995) or such other statutory modification or enactment in place thereof.

versus Lira Tobacco Stores HCMA 310/2073; Daniel Delestre & Others ve,sus HiB Telecom HCMA 310/2013 inter alia).

In the premises; and given the existence of a clear arbitration clause or agreement between the parties as seen above; the present matter is referred for Arbitration proceedings to ensue.

As guided by the aforementioned authorities; Civil Suit 499 of 2O2t lapses as the entire dispute is referred for resolution through arbitration in accordance with the Agreement/Contract between the parties the subject of which can only return to this Court for appellate or supervisory interventions as provided for under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

Further, costs occasioned by commencing the suit in this Court shall be determined by the arbitral tribunal appointed to handle the arbitration proceedings and the said issue of costs is accordingly referred to it.

I do not find it necessary to address the other preliminary objections raised by the Applicant having held as I have above.

This file shall be closed accordingly.

I

Ultu'0^

DATED :....... L t. I t l. m.u 1.. HON, LADY JUSTICE ANNA ,8, MUGENYI

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Lira Tobacco Stores HCMA 310/2073

Case cited

Daniel Delestre & Others v. HiB Telecom HCMA 310/2013

Case cited

Arbitration and Conciliation Act (No. 5 of 1995)

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this JurisAssist collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.