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

11 judgments

Advanced search

All years

All months

Filters

Sort by:

11 judgments

Citation	Judgment date
April 2011
MTN Uganda Limited v Uganda Telecom Limited (HCT - 00 - CC - CS - 297/ 2008) [2011] UGCommC 2007 (28 April 2011) Court rules on local vs international rates for interconnection traffic, BL: FM between telecom operators due to unlawful code use. UCC failed its regulatory duty. Telecommunications law – Interconnection Agreement – traffic classification between domestic and international rates – use of country codes – regulatory failure by national communications authority – legal implications of ad hoc network arrangements.	28 April 2011
MTN Uganda Ltd v Uganda Telcom Ltd (HCT-00-CC-CS 297 of 2008) [2011] UGCommC 119 (28 April 2011) Calls to +256 477 were locally terminated; no ITU assignment existed, so the respondent was liable under local interconnection rates. * Telecommunications law – interconnection agreements – tariff application where calls routed to a non-ITU-assigned operator using a national code – local v international classification. * Numbering and regulation – ITU assignment vs ad hoc national arrangements; necessity of gazetted ministerial guidelines under national communications law. * Evidence – court preference for telecom expert evidence on routing and termination. * Remedies – enforcement of interconnection tariffs, contractual interest, general damages and costs.	28 April 2011
Jayanth Amratlal Bhimji & Anor v Prime Finane Co Ltd (HCT-00-CC-MA 225 of 2008) [2011] UGCommC 101 (17 April 2011) Court set aside summary judgment caused by counsel's error and allowed defence over alleged excessive money-lender interest. Setting aside summary judgment – Order 36 Rule 11 – "good cause" where counsel's mistake or negligence led to dismissal; Mistake of counsel not to be visited on diligent litigant; Money Lenders Act – alleged excessive interest (1% per week) may render transaction harsh, unconscionable and triable; Conditioned leave to defend upon deposit of principal sum.	17 April 2011
Ocen Robert v Oging Joseph (HCT-00-CC-MA 185 of 2010) [2011] UGCommC 95 (17 April 2011) Appeal dismissed: taxation proceeded under earlier order and the advocate-authority issue was barred by res judicata. * Civil procedure – Taxation of costs – Additional bill of costs – Whether counsel may tax client’s bill after withdrawal of instructions. * Res judicata – Issue preclusion where point could and should have been raised in earlier proceedings – Kamunye test applied. * Duty of Registrar/Deputy Registrar to give effect to higher court orders – obedience to resubmission order for taxation. * Remedy – Appeal to higher court over alleged failure to consider counsel’s authority.	17 April 2011
Frostmark EHF (suing through Attorney John Bandize) v Uganda Fish Packers Ltd (Civil Suit No. 170 of 2010) [2011] UGCommC 113 (14 April 2011) A prior consent order settling indebtedness bars a subsequent recovery suit as res judicata; enforcement, not fresh litigation, remains. Commercial law – Consent order – Res judicata – Civil Procedure Act s.7 – Consent orders binding and subsisting unless set aside for fraud, collusion or vitiating factors – Withdrawal of winding‑up petition does not extinguish settled liability – Enforcement/execution remains available.	14 April 2011
Jimmy Mukasa v Tropical Investments Ltd & 3 Ors (Civil Suit No. 232 of 2007) [2011] UGCommC 11 (14 April 2011) An affirmed arbitral award is a decree barring a fresh suit; enforcement against directors must proceed via execution under section 34 CPA. Arbitration award affirmed by High Court treated as decree (s36 Arbitration Act); res judicata bars fresh suit on same decree; execution under s34 CPA is the proper avenue to enforce decrees against directors or third parties; corporate veil may be lifted in execution proceedings where directors concealed assets; separate suit against third party with no pleaded cause of action will fail.	14 April 2011
EDCO v Serunjogi (Miscellaneous Application No. 391 of 2010) [2011] UGCommC 2001 (8 April 2011) Leave to defend granted where triable issues exist about the commission agreement date and who introduced the buyer. Order 36 (summary judgment) – leave to defend – defendant must show bona fide triable issue; disputed date of commission agreement; proof of who introduced purchaser; joinder of third-party agent where payment and competing commission claims exist.	8 April 2011
Kasaijja & Anor v Barclays Bank of Uganda Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 88 of 2011) [2011] UGCommC 199 (8 April 2011) Stay application by guarantors dismissed: no "precisely similar" issues established from pleadings, counterclaim was unanswered. Civil procedure – Order 39 r.2 (stay of similar suits by defendant) – issues must be "precisely similar"; issues arise from contested pleadings (Order 15) – counterclaim is a separate suit and produces no issues if unanswered – joinder under Order 1 r.3 requires parties to be proper parties to the compared suits.	8 April 2011
Transstrack v Damco Logistics Uganda Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 394 of 2010) [2011] UGCommC 202 (8 April 2011) An exclusive foreign jurisdiction clause cannot be enforced against a non‑party third party; High Court retains discretion. Jurisdiction – forum‑selection clause – exclusive jurisdiction of foreign courts; effect on High Court’s constitutional unlimited jurisdiction; discretion to stay; privity of contract – third party cannot invoke contractually agreed foreign jurisdiction clause.	8 April 2011
Katon Manufacturers Ltd v Liaog Ning Middle East & Anor (Miscellaneous Application No. 432 of 2010) [2011] UGCommC 200 (5 April 2011) A consent settlement that compromises an ex parte decree displaces that decree and, ordinarily, costs follow the event. * Civil procedure – Consent judgment – Effect of reconciliation and consent order on prior ex parte decree; consent can compromise and nullify ex parte judgment. * Civil procedure – Costs – Section 27 Civil Procedure Act – costs ordinarily follow the event; judicial discretion to depart from rule. * Civil procedure – Taxation – Costs taxed in ex parte proceedings cannot be relied upon once the ex parte decree is compromised; costs to be taxed afresh. * Civil procedure – Service – Allegations of non-service are contestable but where parties settle, service controversy becomes academic for purposes of the settlement.	5 April 2011
Nanjubu v Kintu & Anor (Miscellaneous Application No. 77 of 2011) [2011] UGCommC 198 (1 April 2011) Court refused to strike out defence; refund claim under contractual clause reserved for trial pending evidence. Civil procedure – striking out pleadings (Order 6 r.30) – court to look at pleadings only; Contract – rescission and refund for failure to pass title/vacant possession (clause 9) – time of essence; Admissions and judgment on admissions (Order 13 r.6); Agency/undisclosed principal and locus to sue; Discretion to stay strike-out pending evidence.	1 April 2011