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

8 judgments

Advanced search

All years

All months

Filters

Sort by:

8 judgments

Citation	Judgment date
March 2010
Dembe Trading Enterprises Ltd v Welcome Impex Uganda Ltd (HCT-00-CC-CS 246 of 2006) [2010] UGCommC 8 (25 March 2010) Plaintiff entitled to unpaid price; contractual 3% monthly interest reduced as unconscionable, interest and costs awarded. Sale of Goods Act s48 – action for price; unenforced cheques and ledger as proof of debt; Civil Procedure Act s26 – court discretion on interest; contractual interest deemed unconscionable (3% p.m.) and reduced; award of pre-suit, commercial and post-judgment interest; nominal general damages; costs follow event.	25 March 2010
Michael Mueller v Ahamed Rajab (HCT-00-CC-CS 806 of 2003) [2010] UGCommC 9 (25 March 2010) Consignment and breach proven but higher tyre price not proved; claimant awarded limited damages, interest and costs. Contract/consignment – existence of agreement evidenced by bill of lading and parties' conduct – consignee's obligation to clear, sell and remit proceeds less commission and expenses. Burden of proof – plaintiff must prove special damages and agreed price on a balance of probabilities. Consent partial judgment – binds parties and limits recoverable sums. Remedies – breach without proven agreed higher price yields compensatory general damages; pre‑suit interest requires agreement; court may award post‑judgment interest and costs.	25 March 2010
Sulaiman Mukasa Kaddu v Lugo Orpharnage Centre (HCT-00-CC-CS 151 of 2004) [2010] UGCommC 10 (25 March 2010) Supplier proved unpaid deliveries; court awarded unpaid invoiced sum, general damages, interest and costs against the respondents. Commercial law – goods supply – proof of delivery: Delivery Notes and matching invoices can establish entitlement to payment on balance of probabilities. Evidence – burden and standard: plaintiff who adduces credible documentary and oral evidence shifts burden; inconsistent defence testimony and absence of key witness weaken denial. Remedies – damages and interest: unpaid invoiced sums awarded as special damages, compensatory general damages for loss, commercial rate interest and costs.	25 March 2010
Mustapha Ramathan & Anor v Century Bottling Company (HCT-00-CC-CS 431 of 2006) [2010] UGCommC 7 (24 March 2010) MDC agreement superseded the 1999 agency; defendant de facto terminated the MDC without required written notice and must repay sums received with interest. Agency law – effect of subsequent written agreement – clause superseding prior agreements cancels earlier agency; MDC agreement governs relationship. Contract formation – apparent authority and acceptance of signature – conduct of parties can validate signatory acts absent fraud. Termination – de facto termination and taking of goods – failure to give written notice as required by contract constitutes breach. Remedies – money had and received, interest, failure to prove special damages strictly leads to dismissal of those heads.	24 March 2010
Commercial Farms of Uganda Ltd v Barclays Bank of Uganda (HCT-00-CC-MA 96 of 2008) [2010] UGCommC 5 (10 March 2010) Application to set aside dismissal denied where reinstatement improperly sought to restrain enforcement of a consent decree. Civil procedure – Order 9 r.23 – setting aside dismissal for non-appearance – mistake of counsel as sufficient cause. Evidence – unexplained/undisputed averment of counsel's excuse treated as admitted. Consent judgments – enforcement – remedy should be variation, contempt or stay, not an injunction restraining enforcement. Court discretion – refusal to reinstate where application lacks prospect of success and would waste court time.	10 March 2010
William Sebuliba Kayongo & Anor v Barclays Bank of Uganda Ltd (HCT-00-CC-MA 325 of 2008) [2010] UGCommC 6 (10 March 2010) An on‑demand guarantee collateral to a mortgage is limited by Section 16, permitting a guarantor to raise triable issues. Civil procedure – summary judgment/leave to defend – defendant must show bona fide triable issue of fact or law. Banking law – on‑demand guarantees/bonds – generally autonomous and payable on honest demand; exception for fraud. Mortgage law – Section 16 Mortgage Act – obligations under collateral security (guarantee) cannot exceed mortgagor’s obligations under the mortgage. Interaction of guarantees and mortgages – on‑demand guarantee collateral to mortgage may permit guarantor to raise defences where mortgage obligations are unclear.	10 March 2010
George William Semivule v Barclays Bank of Uganda (HCT-00-CC-MA 267 of 2008) [2010] UGCommC 3 (9 March 2010) Leave to defend granted where absence of the mortgage deed raised a triable issue affecting guarantees collateral to the mortgage. Civil procedure – summary judgment – leave to defend – defendant must show bona fide triable issue of fact or law pleaded with sufficient particularity. Banking law – on‑demand guarantees – generally payable on demand absent clear fraud; autonomous from underlying contract. Mortgage law – Section 16 Mortgage Act – obligations of guarantor collateral to mortgage limited to mortgagor’s obligations; mortgage deed required to determine extent. Procedural consequence – absence of mortgage deed in summary proceedings can give rise to triable issues and justify leave to defend.	9 March 2010
Peter Mulira v Mitchell cotts (HCT-00-CC-MA 715 of 2009) [2010] UGCommC 4 (9 March 2010) Court stayed execution pending challenge to consent decree, conditional on deposit or security of the decretal sum within 60 days. Stay of execution – Order 22 r.26 & s.98 CPA – consent decree generally upheld unless vitiated by fraud, mistake or misapprehension – cross-suit must show real possibility of success – mediation/ADR consistent with constitutional fair hearing – conditional stay on deposit/security.	9 March 2010