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
4 judgments
Advanced search
All years
Filters
  • Filters
  • Judges
  • Alphabet
Sort by:
4 judgments
Citation
Judgment date
June 2002
Allied Bank International Ltd v Sadru Kara and Abdul Kara (Civil Suit No. 191 of 2002) [2002] UGCommC 10 (30 June 2002)
Minority shareholders may bring derivative suits without prior leave when controllers (including receivers) prevent the company suing.
Company law – derivative actions – exceptions to Foss v Harbottle – minority shareholders may sue where controllers (including receivers) prevent company from suing. Civil procedure – party joinder – misjoinder not fatal; company is the substantive plaintiff though minority shareholders may be nominal plaintiffs. Receivership – receiver’s control does not bar derivative action if receiver is alleged to be a wrongdoer. Pleading – "fraud" in derivative actions means wrongdoing; strict criminal particularity not required.
 30 June 2002
Yuda Lutta Musoke v Greenland Bank (Civil Suit No. 506 of 2001) [2002] UGCommC 9 (26 June 2002)
Preliminary objections based on disputed facts are premature and must await substantive hearing and evidence.
Civil procedure — Preliminary objection — limited to pure points of law; cannot be used where facts must be ascertained (Mukisa Biscuit).; Property law — Deposit of title deed by one joint proprietor — whether it creates an equitable mortgage or banker’s lien absent co‑proprietor consent — factual issue for substantive hearing.; Evidence — disputed factual questions require proof at trial, not resolution on preliminary objection.
 26 June 2002
International Credit Bank Ltd v Celtel Ltd (Miscellaneous Application 268 of 2002) [2002] UGCommC 30 (19 June 2002)
Turquand/ostensible authority applied: internal execution defects did not avoid corporate contracts; leave to defend denied.
Civil procedure – leave to defend (O.33 r.4) and summary decree (O.33 r.3); Company law – execution of deeds and internal formalities (Article 112); Turquand rule/ostensible authority — third parties entitled to rely on apparent corporate authority; Evidence – indicia of contracting with company (single customer number, commercial form, single account).
 19 June 2002
Diamond Trust Bank (U) Ltd v Muhindo Enterprises Ltd & 2 Ors (High Court Civil Suit No. 356 of 1998) [2002] UGCommC 6 (18 June 2002)
Guarantors may be sued jointly; possession to facilitate sale was under s.9, and registrar to inquire into mesne profits.
Mortgage law – mortgagee’s remedies – possession to facilitate sale under clause 3B of mortgage deed and s.9 Mortgage Decree (sale) versus s.6 (realisation by foreclosure/possession); Guaranty – demand guaranty permits suit against guarantors jointly and severally without prior demand on principal; Mortgagee in possession must account for rents and profits – inquiry ordered to determine mesne profits.
 18 June 2002