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
6 judgments
Advanced search
All years
Filters
  • Filters
  • Alphabet
Sort by:
6 judgments
Citation
Judgment date
April 2010
Security Group Uganda Ltd v Xerodoc Uganda Ltd (HCT-00-CV-CS 572 of 2006) [2010] UGCommC 16 (27 April 2010)
Plaintiff proved unpaid service invoices; court awarded proven debt, modest general damages, interest at court rate and costs.
Contract – breach – recovery of unpaid invoices under service contract; proof of special damages by invoices and admission; general damages compensatory where specific loss not proved; discretion to award interest at court rate; failure to file defence and verification undermines challenge to quantum.
 27 April 2010
Petro City Enterprises Ltd v Security Group (U) Ltd (HCT-00-CC-CS 869 of 2004) [2010] UGCommC 15 (26 April 2010)
Whether an employer is vicariously liable for theft by its security guards and whether an unsigned limitation clause is effective.
Contract law – authority to sign – apparent/ostensible authority binds company under service order contracts. Evidence – credibility and balance of probabilities in theft claims; expert measurement evidence. Vicarious liability – employer liable for employees’ theft conducted in course of employment. Exclusion/limitation clauses – unsigned/backside contractual small print ineffective without adequate notice/signature. Remedies – damages, interest and costs; recognition of admitted counterclaim debt.
 26 April 2010
Kasim Jamada Waligo v Ms SunFlag Textiles & Knit Wear Mills Ltd (HCT-00-CC-MA 154 of 2010) [2010] UGCommC 14 (25 April 2010)
Applicant failed to identify a substantial legal point, so leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.
Leave to appeal – requirement to show a substantial question of law; new legal principle – must be identified; mere allegation of importance or likelihood of success insufficient; supporting affidavit must specify points of law; costs awarded on dismissal.
 25 April 2010
John Kibyami v Mission and Relief Transport (HCT-00-CV-CS 263 of 2006) [2010] UGCommC 11 (22 April 2010)
Contract existed but claimant failed to prove breach, vehicle identity or entitlement; suit dismissed with costs.
Contract law – existence of contract established by agreement and parties’ conduct; Evidence – burden of proof on plaintiff, standard on balance of probabilities; Proof of breach – inconsistencies in documentary evidence, vehicle identity and ownership defeat claim; Company identity – minor name discrepancy corrected where outsider dealt in good faith; Remedies – claimant failed to prove entitlement; Suit dismissed with costs.
 22 April 2010
MTN (U) Ltd v Henry Kabaale (HCT-00-CV-CS 504 of 2002) [2010] UGCommC 12 (22 April 2010)
A signed service agreement and account statements established the defendant’s indebtedness; judgment, interest and costs awarded to the plaintiff.
Contract – telecommunications services – existence of written agreement; Evidence – burden of proof and admissions via correspondence; Documentary proof – account statement establishing indebtedness; Civil procedure – counter-claim dismissed under Order 9 r.22 for non-attendance; Remedies – judgment, interest and costs awarded.
 22 April 2010
Norbrook (U) Ltd v Dr.Abdul Kayizi (HCT-00-CV-CS 221 of 2004) [2010] UGCommC 13 (22 April 2010)
Respondent’s admitted diversion of goods established liability; applicant recovered admitted sum with interest and costs.
Employment law – Sales representative’s duty to account for monies – breach of trust by diverting goods/invoices; Evidence – admissions in pleadings and confirmed minutes are binding; Special damages require strict proof; Dishonoured cheque and confirmed admission support liability; Interest from date respondent undertook to pay; costs follow the event.
 22 April 2010