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
2 judgments
Advanced search
All years
Filters
  • Filters
  • Alphabet
Sort by:
2 judgments
February 2011
Uganda Revenue Authority v Tembo Steels Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2006) [2011] UGCommC 207 (25 February 2011)
Court finds Commissioner could assess on "best information" but input/output method was improperly applied; matter remitted for reassessment.
Tax law – Appeal from Tax Appeals Tribunal limited to questions of law under s.27 TAT Act; VAT assessments – Commissioner’s power to estimate tax under s.32(1) and (3) VATA (best information) – conditions and limits; Input/output (electricity consumption) method – not per se illegal but must be rationally and scientifically applied and triangulated with available records; Tribunal’s powers on review (s.19 TAT Act) – must affirm, vary, substitute or remit with directions, not merely quash; Evaluation of evidence – appellate review confined to points of law but tribunal must determine correct tax where empowered to do so.
 25 February 2011
Sebadduka Hussein Hassan v Amisi Mukasa & Travel Ltd & anoer (Civil Suit No468 of 2006) (Civil Suit No. 468 of 2006) [2011] UGCommC 8 (13 February 2011)
Court treated parties' correspondence as a binding settlement and entered judgment for the plaintiff for US$900 plus costs.
Civil procedure – Order 17 Rule 4 (court may decide suit where party fails to take directed step) – Order 17 Rule 6 (dismissal for want of prosecution) – correspondence as evidencing settlement – consent judgment – costs order
 13 February 2011