Simba v Vantage: A Rare Exception Exposing A Loophole In Uganda's Arbitration Law

Simba v Vantage: A rare exception exposing a loophole in Uganda's Arbitration Law

The recent Court of Appeal decision in Simba Properties v Vantage Mezzanine has drawn attention for appearing to depart from the established principle that Ugandan courts have very limited powers to intervene in arbitration matters, especially after an arbitral award has been issued. This article explores why the Simba case stands an exception, the legal gap it exposes, how other jurisdictions handle similar issues, and the reforms Uganda may need to consider.

Why Simba appears to be against the grain – and why it is an exception

Under Uganda's Arbitration and Conciliation Act ("ACA"), court intervention in arbitration is strictly limited, with the Act silent on the question of post-award interim protection. In Simba, after the arbitral award was rendered, the High Court granted interim protection orders by invoking its inherent powers under the Civil Procedure Act and Judicature Act than applying the ACA. The Court of Appeal upheld this approach, but only because the ACA did not provide a specific remedy for post-award protection. The Court was clear that this was a rare and exceptional situation, not a general rule, and that the ACA's silence compelled the court to rely on its inherent jurisdiction.

The loophole exposed

Simba exposes a significant gap in Uganda's arbitration framework: the absence of express provisions for post-award interim protection. This creates uncertainty and the risk that parties may seek to delay or frustrate enforcement of arbitral awards by turning to the courts for remedies not contemplated by the ACA. The reliance on general civil procedure powers undermines the predictability and finality that arbitration is designed to provide.

How other jurisdictions have addressed the issue

Many modern arbitration statutes, such as the English Arbitration Act 1996 and the UNCITRAL Model Law (as adopted in several jurisdictions), expressly empower courts to grant interim measures even after an award has been made, up to the point of enforcement. The principles guiding the grant of interim measures are similar to those applied under civil procedure, including a prima facie test, a balance of convenience, and irreparable harm. The interim measures may also encompass preserving the subject matter or securing the amount awarded. These provisions ensure that parties cannot abuse the post-award period to dissipate assets or otherwise frustrate enforcement, while maintaining the integrity and efficiency of the arbitral process.

What Uganda should do

To address this gap and align with international best practice, Uganda should consider amending the ACA to expressly provide for post-award interim protection measures. Such a step would enhance legal certainty, reduce procedural misuse, and strengthen Uganda's reputation as an arbitration-friendly jurisdiction.

Conclusion

Simba Properties is a rare exception, not a new rule. It highlights a legislative gap that should be addressed to ensure Uganda's arbitration regime remains robust, predictable, and in step with global standards.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.