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
7 judgments
Advanced search
All years
Filters
  • Filters
  • Judges
  • Alphabet
Sort by:
7 judgments
Citation
Judgment date
May 2004
Christopher Kisembo v Global Distributors Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 334 of 2002) [2004] UGCommC 13 (30 May 2004)
No hire contract proved; vehicle retained as security for unpaid debt and the plaintiff's claim dismissed with costs.
Contract of hire — existence of oral agreement; impounding/possession of vehicle as security for debt; credibility of witnesses; reliance on documentary evidence to rebut oral claim; remedy—dismissal and costs.
 30 May 2004
In the matter of Muddu Awulira Enterprises Ltd (Company Cause No. 14 of 2004) [2004] UGCommC 148 (25 May 2004)
Court issued case‑management directions in a creditors’ winding‑up petition, ordered disclosure and reminded parties of statutory moratoria.
Company law – Winding‑up petition – Case management directions and timetable for affidavits and disclosure; interlocutory application for security for costs; effect of commencement of winding up under Companies Act (ss. 227, 228, 229(2)) prohibiting dispositions and enforcement without leave; management of professional conflicts in proceedings.
 25 May 2004
Yummy Loaf Limited v Investment Masters Limited and Another (Miscellaneous Cause No. 8 of 2004) [2004] UGCommC 146 (24 May 2004)
Court held appeal to Minister under s.11(4) optional and overruled preliminary objection, allowing judicial review to proceed.
Administrative law — Judicial review — alternative statutory remedies; Trade Licensing Act s.11(4) — appeal to Minister optional; access to superior courts preserved; agency acting for local authority — proper party to be sued; preliminary objection on prematurity overruled.
 24 May 2004
Plexus Cotton Limited v Muddu Awulira Enterprises Limited (Miscellaneous Application 287 of 2004) [2004] UGCommC 144 (21 May 2004)

 

 21 May 2004
Toko Saverio t/a Superior High School v Ssekiranda Elly Nsereko (High Court Civil Suit No. 188 of 2001) [2004] UGCommC 12 (19 May 2004)
The respondent unlawfully interfered with the applicant's school licence, entitling the applicant to damages, interest, and costs.
Tort — unlawful interference with business/licence; Education Act — provisional licence and registration process; Remedies — general and exemplary damages, injunction; Refusal to order account of profits where parties lack reliable accounting records.
 19 May 2004
Atabya Agencies Ltd v Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application 109 of 2004) [2004] UGCommC 145 (17 May 2004)
Leave to appeal and stay granted conditionally; applicant must deposit a specified bank draft as security within 48 hours.
Civil procedure – informal application for leave to appeal – stay of execution – test for leave to appeal (prima facie grounds merit serious consideration) – requirement for security (bank draft) to obtain stay.
 17 May 2004
Mwijakubi and Ors v British American Tobacco Uganda Ltd (HCT-00-CC-MA 284 of 2005) [2004] UGCommC 10 (4 May 2004)
Applicants failed to establish legal or factual basis for an interlocutory injunction restraining respondent from buying tobacco; dismissed with costs.
Civil procedure – interlocutory injunction – applicants sought restraint on respondent buying tobacco – Section 33 Judicature Act not a basis for interlocutory relief – Section 64 CPA inapplicable unless so prescribed – Section 98 (inherent jurisdiction) not engaged absent ends-of-justice or abuse of process – requirement to show risk of substantial/irreparable loss – relief would improperly affect third-party contracted farmers.
 4 May 2004