|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| December 2009 |
|
|
Plaintiff entitled to copyright protection; defendant infringed two specific artworks and is ordered to pay damages, injunction and destruction of infringing items.
* Copyright – original artistic works – requirement of sufficient effort and expression in material form to attract protection.
* Copyright infringement – protection limited to expression not ideas; substantial similarity and recognizably derived works required.
* Remedies – damages (general and exemplary), injunction, destruction of infringing copies, delivery up, costs.
* Counterclaim – declaration of ownership and breach of license requires evidential proof of licence or employment; absent proof counterclaim fails.
|
11 December 2009 |
|
Plaintiff proved authorship; two artworks infringed, awarded damages, injunction and destruction of infringing items; counterclaim dismissed.
Copyright — originality and material form — copyright protects original expression not ideas or generic style; Copyright infringement — comparison of works: infringement requires substantial similarity of expression; Remedies — general and exemplary damages, injunction, delivery up/destruction of infringing copies; Counterclaim — failure to prove license/assignment or employment defeats claim for ownership and damages.
|
11 December 2009 |
| November 2009 |
|
|
Principal liable for goods taken by agent: ostensible authority and agency by estoppel bind the Defendant to pay the supplier.
* Commercial law – recovery of price for goods supplied on credit – agency and apparent authority. * Agency – implied, ostensible and estoppel – representation by managing director and reliance by supplier. * Principal’s liability for fraud of agent committed in course of ostensible authority. * Remedies – damages, interest, dismissal of exemplarary damages for lack of particulars; counterclaim disposition.
|
11 November 2009 |
|
Respondent liable for unpaid PVC supplies ordered through an ostensible agent; fraud and negligence claims dismissed.
Agency and ostensible authority – intermediary named on LPOs and deliveries binds principal; Principal liable for acts within agent’s apparent authority; Fraud – strict burden of proof; Negligence – liability dependent on agent’s scope; Remedies – award of principal sum, nominal damages, statutory interest, and costs.
|
11 November 2009 |
|
Defendant liable for unpaid credit supplies where agent had ostensible authority; two transactions allowed totaling Ushs.18,400,000/=.
Commercial law – sale of goods on credit – existence of credit agreement; Agency – ostensible authority of agent to collect goods; Liability of principal for agent’s acts; Dishonoured post-dated cheques and alleged forgery; Remedies – special damages, nominal damages, interest and costs.
|
11 November 2009 |
| October 2009 |
|
|
Leave to appeal granted on whether counsel can compromise without specific instructions and on confidentiality/binding effect of mediation consents.
Civil procedure – Leave to appeal under Order 44 r1(2) – prima facie serious question of law; Advocate’s ostensible authority – power to compromise matters while acting for a client; Mediation – Judicature (Commercial Court Division) Mediation Rules, 2007 r21 – confidentiality of mediation communications; Consent judgments – setting aside and admissibility of mediation wishes; Public interest in appellate guidance.
|
29 October 2009 |
|
Temporary injunction granted to protect derivative-company interests in specified Nateete land pending trial.
Commercial law – interim injunction – preservation of status quo pending trial; derivative action by minority shareholders – locus to sue on behalf of company; procedural irregularity in jurat – curable under Article 126(2)(e); prima facie fraud and bona fide purchaser issues require full trial; irreparable harm and balance of convenience in land disputes.
|
29 October 2009 |
|
The court adjudicated financial claims and counterclaims arising from consignment clearing and forwarding services.
Contract – Clearing and forwarding – Determination of due financial claims and counterclaims following privatization.
|
14 October 2009 |
|
Defendants held liable to refund security deposit evidenced by cheque; first defendant kept as party despite separate legal personality.
Commercial law – distributorship/security deposit – validity and effect of a cheque as receipt; corporate personality and agency – when a company is a cloak for its director; remedies – repayment, general damages, interest and costs.
|
7 October 2009 |
| September 2009 |
|
|
Seizure of an uncustomed vehicle was lawful; buyer’s judicial-review remedies denied and buyer holds no better title than seller.
Customs law – seizure and forfeiture of uncustomed goods under EACCMA ss.200, 210; Judicial review – prerogative reliefs (certiorari, mandamus, prohibition) and need to show error on face of record; Sale of Goods – nemo dat: buyer acquires no better title than seller; Evidentiary weight of uncontested affidavits and original import documents.
|
30 September 2009 |
|
A signed loan bound the respondent, but employer misrepresentations made the employer and directors liable to indemnify her.
* Contract formation – signed loan agreement binds signatory absent fraud or misrepresentation (L’Estrange principle). * Misrepresentation – third-party employer inducement suffices to vitiate free consent and attract equitable indemnity. * Parties – employer and directors were not parties to the loan but are liable in equity for representations inducing the contract. * Remedies – principal repayment, equitable indemnity, general damages and interest (25% p.a.).
|
23 September 2009 |
|
Whether the applicant's insurance brokerage services qualify as VAT-exempt "insurance services" under the VAT Act.
VAT – insurance services – whether insurance brokers supply "insurance services" – exemption of brokerage commissions – judicial review v. alternative tax appeal remedy – interpretative approach to tax exemptions; reliance on regulator and comparative law.
|
23 September 2009 |
|
Registrar’s lump‑sum taxation was excessive, misapplied the sixth schedule, and improperly relied on confidential mediation; fee reduced and interest awarded.
• Civil procedure – Taxation of costs – application of sixth schedule to Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations• Advocates’ fees – instruction fees and party/party to advocate/client uplift (one-third)• Regulation 6 – special fee for exceptional importance or complexity: tests and requirement to give reasons• Mediation confidentiality – Commercial Court (Mediation Pilot Project) Rules 2003, Rule 22; inadmissibility of mediation communications in subsequent proceedings• Appellate review of taxing officer’s awards – interference only for error in principle or lack of reasoned exercise of discretion
|
22 September 2009 |
|
Regulator lawfully intervened: public advertising transformed an intended private share offer into a regulated public prospectus.
Company law — private placement v public offer — Section 57 Companies Act; Advertising/publicity may convert private placing into prospectus; Capital Markets Authority — investor protection and market regulation powers (s.5 Cap 84); Registrar–CMA referral and prospectus approval (s.42 Companies Act); Requirement for proper resolutions and compliance when increasing share capital.
|
20 September 2009 |
|
Judicial review application struck out for wrong procedure and being filed after the three-month statutory limitation.
* Judicial review — procedure — applications must be by notice of motion under Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules 2009 (Rule 6). * Judicial review — limitation — Rule 5 requires presentation within three months; time limits are substantive. * Revocation of Order 42A — prior statement/leave requirements removed by 2009 revocation rules. * Procedural non-compliance and delay may justify striking out without addressing merits.
|
20 September 2009 |
|
Applicant's judicial review dismissed for wrong procedure and being time-barred without justification.
* Judicial review — procedure — Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules 2009 require notice of motion (with affidavit), not originating summons. * Limitation — mandatory three-month period for judicial review applications; discretion to extend requires pleaded reasons. * Affidavits — attachments form part of pleadings; contradictory averments in body may be cured by attachments where no prejudice results.
|
20 September 2009 |
|
Applicant's conversion claim dismissed for failure to prove misappropriation; cheque was in respondent's name and company records were inadequate.
* Commercial law – conversion – requisitioned cheque drawn in employee’s name – requirement that plaintiff prove entitlement to immediate possession at date of alleged conversion.* Evidence – burden of proof – plaintiff must prove misappropriation where accounting records are weak or absent.* Company/accounts – inadequate internal record-keeping undermines a claim of conversion or breach of trust.* Civil procedure – counterclaim requirement – damages not recoverable without a pleaded counterclaim.
|
14 September 2009 |
|
Appeal allowed: taxation application dismissed because billed work fell under a retainer with a different contracting client.
* Advocates Remuneration Rules – taxation of costs – whether work is taxable when covered by an existing retainer agreement.
* Contract law – retainer agreements – scope of consultancy versus non‑routine/litigation work.
* Civil procedure – wrong party – application for taxation brought against non‑contracting party.
* Procedural fairness – mischaracterisation of retainer work cannot be basis for taxation.
|
7 September 2009 |
|
Review application dismissed for failure to show face-of-record error, lack of due diligence and undue delay.
Civil procedure – Review under Order 46 CPR – error apparent on face of record vs. mere erroneous decision – newly discovered evidence standard and requirement of due diligence – reviewability of interest and apportionment disputes; laches/undue delay as a bar to review.
|
1 September 2009 |
| August 2009 |
|
|
The applicant cannot enforce a judgment in a new suit while the same matter is pending on appeal.
Civil procedure – lis pendens (Section 6 Civil Procedure Act) – pending appeal bars subsequent enforcement suit; Substitution of parties (Order 24 CPR) – Government liability for Trust obligations on expiry – expiry of a trust does not necessarily abate pending appeal.
|
28 August 2009 |
|
Defendants liable for outstanding bank indebtedness; bank entitled to recover debt, interest and enforce lien on securities.
Banking law – banker–customer indebtedness – burden of proof on plaintiff – banker’s general lien over securities deposited – restructuring/renewal letters as evidence – unjust enrichment – discretion to award interest (reduced rate where plaintiff in liquidation).
|
26 August 2009 |
|
A consent judgment from court-ordered mediation is binding and will not be set aside absent fraud, mistake, or similar defect.
* Civil procedure – Consent judgment – enforceability and grounds for setting aside (fraud, collusion, mistake, misapprehension) * Alternative dispute resolution – Mediation Rules – mediator-filed agreements and confidentiality of mediation documents * Authority – signatory’s capacity to bind corporate parties * Evidence – burden to prove mistakes in account calculations * Court fees – non-payment is a remediable procedural defect, not automatic nullity of judgment
|
20 August 2009 |
| July 2009 |
|
|
Applicant recovered funds after court found the bank draft counterfeit; first and second respondents liable; veil lifted for fourth respondent.
Banking law – forged bank draft – dishonour and substitute cheque (US practice) – money had and received – unjust enrichment; Fraud – false representation and requisite guilty knowledge; Lifting corporate veil where company incorporated and used to receive proceeds of fraud; Remedies – repayment, injunction, interest and costs; Advocate’s liability – negligence insufficient to establish fraud.
|
27 July 2009 |
|
Bank recovers funds paid on a counterfeit draft; primary defendants fraudulent; veil pierced for one company.
Banking law – Dishonoured counterfeit foreign draft – Evidence of dishonour by correspondent bank (swift, remittance advice, substitute cheque); Money had and received – quasi-contractual restitutionary claim where consideration fails; Fraud – false representation on land ownership and source of funds establishing guilty knowledge; Lifting corporate veil – piercing for a company incorporated to receive proceeds of fraud; Remedies – recovery of decretal sum, interest, injunctions, dismissal of claims and counterclaim; Costs order – parties to bear own costs save specified order.
|
27 July 2009 |
| June 2009 |
|
|
Temporary injunction refused: dispute was about payment condition precedent, property status quo already altered and damages were adequate.
* Civil procedure – temporary injunction – purpose to preserve status quo – tests for grant (prima facie case, irreparable harm, balance of convenience).
* Contract – condition precedent – whether payment of specified sum satisfied.
* Property/interim relief – status quo already altered (titles released, partial possession) – damages adequate remedy.
* Multiplicity of agreements – evidentiary confusion as to transaction structure.
|
30 June 2009 |
|
Guarantor granted leave to defend because genuine triable issues exist on whether the guarantee is demand‑based and the lender breached the loan agreement.
Commercial procedure – summary judgment/summary suit – grant of leave to defend where bona fide triable issues exist; Guarantees – demand guarantee v suretyship; Mortgage Act s.16 – limits obligations collateral to a mortgage; Burden of proof – creditor must establish sums advanced and default by principal.
|
18 June 2009 |
|
Applicant's use of notice of motion for originating summons was procedurally wrong; matter likely required judicial review; application dismissed.
Civil procedure – Originating summons – Proper procedure for taking out originating summons (Order 37 r.8) – Originating summons not commenced by notice of motion – Eligibility to take out originating summons (Order 37 rr.1–6) – Judicial review likely appropriate remedy (Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules, 2009).
|
18 June 2009 |
|
Plaintiff may sue the Registrar of Titles for alleged mala fides; preliminary objections dismissed and suit proceeds on merits.
* Registration of Titles Act – capacity of Registrar of Titles to be sued – registrar may be sued where alleged acts are mala fide or fraudulent. * Section 175 RTA – immunity limited to bona fide acts; not absolute. * Section 182 RTA – procedure to require Registrar to state grounds; permissive, not exclusive. * Sections 183/185 RTA – actions for damages against Government do not preclude other suits against Registrar/officers. * Pleading – cause of action disclosed where right, violation and liability are pleaded.
|
15 June 2009 |
|
Guarantors' liability is contingent on the principal debtor’s obligation; refusal to allow them to defend was reviewable and set aside.
* Civil procedure – Review (Order 46 r.1) – Error apparent on the face of the record – Distinction between reviewable error and mere erroneous decision.
* Commercial law – Guarantees – Guarantee is accessory to principal obligation; guarantor’s liability contingent on and limited to principal debtor’s default.
* Summary suit procedure – Whether liability of guarantors can be determined prior to ascertaining principal indebtedness – leave to defend.
|
15 June 2009 |
|
A party may seek stay of execution pending a reinstatement application; stays in separate suits operate independently.
* Civil procedure – consent judgments – binding effect; setting aside only for fraud, collusion or ignorance of material facts.
* Civil procedure – stay of execution – Order 22 r.26 permits stay where a suit is pending in the name of the person against whom the decree was passed; miscellaneous applications qualify as 'suits'.
* Civil procedure – issue estoppel/procedure – s.6 Civil Procedure Act mandates stay where matter is directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit.
* Procedural scope – stay in one suit does not automatically operate as stay in a separate suit; applications independent.
|
2 June 2009 |
|
Whether Government or delegates were to pay the applicant; court held delegates liable and dismissed the claim.
* Public procurement – interpretation of bid documents – literal effect of clause requiring service providers to charge users; amendments must be clear and written. * Contract formation – notification of award and mention of LPO do not automatically create Government liability. * Security measures – issuance of accreditation stickers does not equate to a payment obligation. * Evidence – burden to prove special damages strictly and on balance of probabilities.
|
1 June 2009 |
| May 2009 |
|
|
Subcontractor breached a contract by producing garments that did not match the agreed sample; plaintiff awarded damages.
Contract by sample – identification of master sample; conformity of bulk to sample; breach where produced goods showed colour contamination and misplacement; rescission and restitution issues where buyer retained/sold some goods; measure of damages for breach of contract (loss of bargain and consequential loss); counterclaim for price fails where supplier failed substantial performance.
|
21 May 2009 |
| April 2009 |
|
|
Execution sale set aside where bailiff failed to follow auction procedures and sale became an unlawful private transaction.
Execution law – sale in execution of immovable property – mandatory public auction, advertisement and deposit of title deeds; Bailiff as agent of court – duties and limits; Registration of warrant at Land Registry; Proceeds to be paid into court – payments to advocates unlawful; Irregularities vitiating sale; Executing court’s jurisdiction over execution disputes (s.34/35 CPA).
|
9 April 2009 |
|
Court adjourned the matter, ordered personal service on an absent third party through her counsel and fixed a scheduling date.
* Civil procedure – Adjournment and scheduling – Court orders adjournment to a specified date and fixes scheduling hearing.
* Civil procedure – Service – Personal service by court process server through counsel on record in a related proceeding.
* Civil procedure – Non-attendance – Court warning that failure to attend may attract interlocutory orders.
* Costs – No order as to costs at interlocutory stage.
|
8 April 2009 |
|
Incorrect public notice (wrong name and chassis) rendered the respondent’s auction of the applicant’s vehicle unlawful; damages awarded.
Customs law – applicable regime – notice of intended sale – sufficiency of notice – misdescription of importer and chassis – wrongful disposal of goods – entitlement to damages and interest.
|
6 April 2009 |
| March 2009 |
|
|
Courts held that toddlers and infants lack contractual capacity; forged transfers set aside and council liable for negligent facilitation and punished with damages.
* Contract law – capacity of minors (toddlers/infants) to contract – very young children lack capacity; transactions void and guardians liable as trustees. * Fraud/forgery – handwriting expert evidence establishes forged sale agreements and invalid tenancy documents. * Public law/tort – municipal negligence in recording tenancies; exemplary/punitive damages against public body for arbitrary/oppressive conduct. * Remedies – setting aside forged agreements, restitution of possession, compensatory and punitive damages, liability of guardians for minors' obligations.
|
29 March 2009 |
|
Applicant’s counsel negligence constituted good cause but absence of a prima facie defence meant application to reinstate was dismissed.
Civil procedure – Set aside of decree under Order 36 r.11 – counsel’s negligence can constitute good cause but reinstatement requires prima facie defence; cause of action – plaint discloses claim where indebtedness acknowledged; jurisdiction – commercial claims in High Court.
|
19 March 2009 |
|
A guarantor may be sued immediately after the principal’s default unless the guarantee makes realization of other securities a condition precedent.
Civil procedure – summary procedure – applicant must show a bona fide triable issue to obtain leave to defend; Guarantees – guarantor’s liability is secondary and arises on principal’s default; Creditor’s discretion – no obligation to realize other securities before suing guarantor unless guarantee makes realization a condition precedent; Condition precedent – must be expressly or clearly implied and pleaded.
|
19 March 2009 |
|
Payments to individuals or directors do not discharge a company’s consent-order debt; attachment not set aside.
Civil procedure – Consent judgment – Whether payments to individuals satisfy a company’s monetary judgment – Payments to directors/personal accounts not deemed payment to company absent agency or express stipulation (Underwood v Bank of Liverpool). Warrant of attachment – when to set aside – consent order not varied without fraud or fresh consent.
|
10 March 2009 |
|
Local vernacular advertisement is inadequate notice for a public auction; sale set aside and must be re-advertised nationally.
* Commercial execution – sale by bailiffs – adequacy of notice for public auction – advertisement in local vernacular newspaper insufficient. * Procedural fairness – setting aside dismissal for genuine late arrival of counsel. * Remedy – setting aside sale and ordering re-advertisement in national newspapers to ensure transparency and investor confidence.
|
8 March 2009 |
|
Objectors failed to prove attachable interests or bona fide purchase; application dismissed for lack of attachment and proof.
* Civil procedure – attachment of property – objector applications under Order 22 Rules 55–57.
* Property law – registration, transfer and caveats – unregistered equitable interests versus registered title.
* Conveyancing – bona fide purchaser for value – burden to prove arm’s-length purchase and payment.
* Remedies – failure to register/seek caution, negligent conveyancing remedy against conveyancers, not lifting of non-existent attachments.
|
4 March 2009 |
| February 2009 |
|
|
A cheque issued by a third party cannot substitute for a pleaded retainer or taxed bill to found a solicitor’s claim.
Advocates’ fees – retainer required – bill of costs delivered and taxed or agreement for fixed fee necessary before suit; negotiable instrument – cheque by third party does not establish contract or cause of action against a non-party; Order 6 Rule 30 – striking out for failure to disclose cause of action.
|
25 February 2009 |
|
Consent orders are binding and will not be varied for mere delay, failed negotiations, or financial hardship.
* Civil procedure – Consent orders – treated as fresh agreements – can only be varied for fraud, mistake, illegality, misapprehension or contrary to court policy. * Civil procedure – Review of consent order – failure of negotiations, delay or financial hardship alone do not justify variation. * Execution – Garnishee orders and security – court will protect a judgment creditor’s security absent exceptional circumstances. * Exercise of discretion – inherent powers invoked only to prevent denial of rights or injustice.
|
23 February 2009 |
|
Bank entitled to recover mistakenly credited funds where recipient knowingly withdrew and used funds received under a forged instruction.
Banking law – mistaken credit and reversal; forgery of payment instruction; duty of care of bank to remitter versus duty of recipient to act in good faith; customer’s warranty of authority to use credited funds; lapsed guarantees; entitlement of bank to trace/recover mistakenly credited funds.
|
16 February 2009 |
|
An objector who held possession and purchaser's interest at attachment was entitled to release from attachment despite title remaining in the judgment debtor's name.
* Civil procedure – Order 22 CPR – Objector application: requirement to prove interest and possession at the date of attachment; title disputes generally excluded from this inquiry.
* Evidence – admissibility – hearsay from unnamed informants and unsworn statements inadmissible in objector proceedings.
* Land law – registered title not conclusive in objector proceedings; possession and purchaser's interest may justify release from attachment.
|
15 February 2009 |
|
Applicant proved ownership and possession; property removed from attachment for failure to show it was held for the judgment debtor.
Civil Procedure — Objector proceedings (Order 22 Rules 55–58) — Attachment of property — Interest and possession at date of attachment — Burden of proof — Whether property held on own account or in trust for judgment debtor — Relief: removal from attachment and costs.
|
15 February 2009 |
|
Procedural mis‑citation of the rule to amend pleadings may be overlooked if the correct procedure was used and no injustice results.
Civil procedure – Amendment of pleadings – Mis‑citation of procedural rule (Order 6 r.18 v r.19) – Chamber Summons proper procedure – Article 126(2)(e) permits overlooking technical defects where no injustice results.
|
4 February 2009 |
|
Plaintiff to a counterclaim cannot replace mortgaged title with bank guarantee; deposit is not payment into court.
Civil procedure – Order 27 R.1 and R.9 – payment into court versus deposit of security; Plaintiff as defendant to counter-claim; substitution of mortgage security; court's power to cure procedural irregularities; prejudice from time-limited bank guarantees.
|
4 February 2009 |
|
Purchaser entitled to refund of deposit with interest and costs where seller failed to enable completion and resold the property.
Contract law – sale agreement – purchaser entitled to refund of deposit where seller fails to procure mortgage discharge and resells property; interest and costs awarded.
|
3 February 2009 |
| January 2009 |
|
|
The judge disqualified himself to preserve the appearance of impartiality despite finding no actual bias.
* Judicial recusal – Alleged bias based on judicial remarks during interlocutory hearing – Whether appearance of justice justifies disqualification even absent actual bias. * Balancing recusal against prejudice and delay to parties. * Judicial duty: ensure both justice is done and appears to be done.
|
28 January 2009 |
