KAMPALA, Ugands | The High Court of Uganda has ruled that the Uganda Muslim Supreme Council (UMSC) must use its internal arbitration mechanisms to resolve leadership and governance disputes, overturning a prior judgment that had allowed the matter to proceed in court. Justice Dr. Douglas Karekona Singiza delivered the decision on January 3, 2025, emphasizing the necessity of adhering to the internal dispute resolution framework provided in the UMSC’s Constitution.

The UMSC, established in the 1970s during Idi Amin’s regime, was created to unify Uganda’s Muslim community, which had been divided by doctrinal and leadership disagreements. Over the years, the Council has faced persistent challenges, including allegations of mismanagement and disputes over leadership. These tensions culminated in a petition by members seeking the dissolution of the Council, claiming that its actions were detrimental to the Muslim community.

Initially, the court had ruled against dissolving the UMSC, instead directing the Council to hold a special meeting to address the issues raised. However, the outcomes of that meeting—held in late 2023—intensified the disputes. Key decisions included the suspension of the Mufti, the appointment of an acting Mufti, and the establishment of a committee to investigate alleged irregularities. These decisions sparked further legal battles, with both sides contesting the legality of the meeting and the resolutions passed.

In his ruling, Justice Singiza emphasized that the UMSC Constitution contains clear provisions for resolving such disputes through the Muslim Arbitration and Conciliation Council (MAC). This internal mechanism is designed to address conflicts among members and ensure governance issues are handled within the organization. The judge noted that bypassing this process and bringing the matter to court was a mistake, as it disregarded the Council’s established procedures.

Justice Singiza pointed out that internal arbitration mechanisms like the MAC are essential for maintaining organizational integrity and promoting unity. By ignoring these provisions, the parties risked undermining the very foundation of the UMSC’s governance. He also highlighted that the court’s role in such cases is not to intervene in matters that can be resolved internally, particularly when the organization has a clear framework for addressing disputes.

The court’s decision to overturn the earlier judgment was also influenced by what it termed an “error on the face of the record.” The earlier ruling failed to account for the arbitration clause in the UMSC Constitution, which mandates that disputes must first be resolved internally. Justice Singiza noted that the oversight necessitated a review and correction of the judgment.

In addition to setting aside the previous judgment, the court dismissed several related motions, including those addressing contempt of court and the implementation of the contested resolutions. The judge stated that these motions had become irrelevant following the decision to direct the parties back to arbitration.