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

10 judgments

Advanced search

All years

All months

Filters

Sort by:

10 judgments

Citation	Judgment date
September 2009
Herbert Niwamanya v URA (Civil Suit No. 3 of 2008) [2009] UGCommC 38 (30 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
Access Financial Services PLC Ltd v Khayongo Patricia Rutiba (HCT-00-CC-CS 61 of 2007) [2009] UGCommC 42 (23 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
AON Uganda Ltd v URA (HCT-00-CC-OS 4 of 2008) [2009] UGCommC 39 (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
Jobbing Field Properties Ltd v Lumonya Bushora & Co. Advocates (HCT-00-CC-CA 11 of 2008) [2009] UGCommC 60 (22 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
KCC Football Club Ltd v Capital Markets Authority (HCT-00-CC-CS 367 of 2007) [2009] UGCommC 32 (20 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
Lionking Internation Ltd v URA (HCT-00-CC-OS-0004 OF 2009) (HCT-00-CC-OS 4 of 2009) [2009] UGCommC 29 (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
Speke Hotel (1996) Ltd v URA (HCT-00-CC-OS 3 of 2009) [2009] UGCommC 31 (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
Pearl Engineering Co. Ltd v Magdalene Aguti (Civil Suit No. 991 of 2004) [2009] UGCommC 28 (14 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
Hotel Diplomate Ltd v Geofrey Otim t/a BSG Advocates (Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2009) [2009] UGCommC 161 (7 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
Combined Services Ltd v Attorney General (HCT-00-CC-MA 200 of 2009) [2009] UGCommC 26 (1 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