Skip to document content Skip to main menu Skip to search
background image
profile image

Commercial Court of Uganda

The Commercial Court was established in 1996 as a division of the High Court of Uganda devoted to hearing and determining commercial disputes with current jurisdiction (as established under Legal Notice No.4 of 1996 and Instruction Circular No.1 of 1996); company causes, Bankruptcies and intellectual property.

The mission of the court is to deliver to the commercial community an efficient, expeditious and cost-effective mode of adjudicating disputes that affect directly and significantly the economic, commercial and financial life of Uganda.

Physical address
Plot 14, Lumumba Avenue, Nakasero.
Visit website
https://judiciary.go.ug/data/smenu/17/Commercial%20Court%20Division.html
2 judgments
Advanced search
All years
Filters
  • Filters
  • Judges
  • Alphabet
Sort by:
2 judgments
Citation
Judgment date
December 2002
Mariam Nassali v Angel K.K Sewamala (Miscellaneous Application 468 of 2002) [2002] UGCommC 26 (18 December 2002)
Possession at attachment gives locus standi for release; ownership disputes must be litigated separately.
Civil procedure – Objector proceedings (Order 19 rr.55–58 CPR) – Possession at time of attachment confers locus standi to seek release from attachment. Civil procedure – Ownership disputes and alleged fraudulent transfers – triable in separate suit under Order 19 r.60, not in objector proceedings. Evidence – Uncontradicted possession evidence entitles objector to relief even if title disputes exist.
 18 December 2002
Mastermind Tobacco Uganda (PTY) Limited v Rugujiro & Anor (Miscellaneous Application 713 of 2005) [2002] UGCommC 29 (6 December 2002)
Interim injunction refused where both parties showed prima facie cases and balance of convenience favored respondents.
Interlocutory injunctions – requirements: prima facie case and probability of success; irreparable harm not adequately shown where asset value ascertainable; balance of convenience and preservation of status quo; economic consequences and employment considerations in injunctive relief.
 6 December 2002