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
  • Alphabet
Sort by:
7 judgments
Citation
Judgment date
June 2009
Tirupati Development (U) Ltd v Peter Bibangamba & Anor (HCT-00-CC-CS 188 of 2009) [2009] UGCommC 33 (30 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
Maria Odido v Barclays Bank of Uganda Ltd (HCT-00-CC-MA 645 of 2008) [2009] UGCommC 34 (18 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
Rock Petroleum (U) Ltd v URA (HCT-00-CC-MA 8 of 2009) [2009] UGCommC 47 (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
Edward Kabugo Sentongo v Bank of Baroda (U) Ltd (HCT-00-CC-CS 166 of 2002) [2009] UGCommC 41 (15 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
Paul Kasagga & Anor v Barclays Bank (U) Ltd (HCT-00-CC-MA 112 of 2009) [2009] UGCommC 30 (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
Peter Mulira v Mitchell Cotts Ltd (HCT-00-CC-MA 521 of 2008) [2009] UGCommC 37 (2 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
CHOGM Tour Agents 2007 (U) Ltd v The Attorney General of Uganda (HCCS 18 of 2008) [2009] UGCommC 46 (1 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