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
November 2013
AIC Progetti & 2 Ors v Data Systems Engineering & Research Corporation (Miscellaneous Cause No. 184 of 2013) [2013] UGCommC 201 (29 November 2013) Arbitral award upheld: arbitrator lawfully decided replacement-of-experts issue; challenge dismissed with costs. Arbitration — scope of reference — setting aside award under s34(2)(a)(iv) for matters beyond reference; pleadings and joint scheduling memorandum define arbitrator’s jurisdiction; Civil Procedure Rules — Order 3 r1 (advocate’s competence to depose affidavits) and Order 19 r3(1) (means of knowledge and severability); duty to raise jurisdictional objections during arbitration (s16(3)).	29 November 2013
Ali Ahmad v Mohammad Ahmad (HCCS 38 of 2011) [2013] UGCommC 198 (25 November 2013) A jointly commissioned forensic report on signatures is admissible as factual findings under section 27 but does not finally determine the suit. Company law – share transfer – allegation of forged transfer – forensic handwriting reference – trial by referee under Judicature Act section 27 – referees as officers of court (s28) – expert factual findings admissible but do not necessarily dispose of all legal issues – remaining issues to be heard by court.	25 November 2013
Mavid Pharmaceuticals Ltd v Roya Group of Pakistan (Civil Suit No. 319 of 2009) [2013] UGCommC 197 (22 November 2013) Preliminary res judicata and no-cause-of-action objections cannot be decided without evidence; objections overruled pending trial. Civil procedure – preliminary objections – res judicata – section 7 Civil Procedure Act – requirement that matter be directly and substantially in issue and finally decided; Cause of action – Order 7 r.11 – plaint alone to be considered; Points of law based on disputed facts require evidence and should await trial; Consent judgment may be res judicata if earlier proceedings clearly decide same issue, but not where record does not show determination.	22 November 2013
Huadar Guangdong Chinese Co. Ltd v Damco Logistics Uganda Ltd (Civil Suit No. 4 of 2012) [2013] UGCommC 195 (15 November 2013) Exclusive English‑jurisdiction clause in incorporated standard terms ousts Uganda hearing; suit dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Commercial law – carriage of goods – incorporation of standard trading conditions – exclusive jurisdiction clause (English courts) – preliminary objection on jurisdiction upheld; time‑bar clause not determined.	15 November 2013
British American Tobacco Uganda Ltd v Lira Tobacco Stores (HCMA 924 of 2013) [2013] UGCommC 192 (14 November 2013) An arbitration clause survives contract expiry and mandates referral to arbitration unless statutory grounds for refusal exist. * Arbitration – Mandatory referral under section 5(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act – Court must refer unless arbitration agreement null, inoperative, incapable of performance, or no dispute. * Separability doctrine – Arbitration clause distinct and enforceable despite expiry or alleged invalidity of main contract. * Waiver – Filing a defence and counterclaim does not necessarily waive right to refer to arbitration; application may follow filing of defence. * Trade usage/custom – Not a ground to displace mandatory referral under section 5; court's discretion limited to statutory grounds. * Procedure – Once referred, court proceedings collapse; arbitral tribunal decides substantive issues and costs; court retains supervisory jurisdiction under the Act.	14 November 2013
Byamugisha v National Social Security Fund (HCT-00-CC-CA 16 of 2013) [2013] UGCommC 193 (14 November 2013) High Court properly taxes advocate-client fees; taxing master erred by omitting items and miscalculating VAT, taxation set aside. Advocate-client costs – Taxation venue and scale – Rule 109(3) places advocate remuneration taxation in High Court under Advocates (Remuneration & Taxation of Costs) Rules; Taxing master must follow Schedule VI; VAT payable on professional (instruction) fees not on disbursements; appellate interference only for error in principle or exceptional cases; omission of items from instruction fee is error requiring set aside and fresh taxation.	14 November 2013
Kananura v Kaijuka (HCT-00-CC-MA 763 of 2013) [2013] UGCommC 190 (12 November 2013) Vehicle valuation may be set off against decretal sum under a varied consent judgment; unpaid balance remains payable. * Civil procedure – Consent judgments – limited grounds for variation or rescission (fraud, collusion, mistake); review allowed where material facts warrant it (s.82 CPA; Order 46 CPR). * Set-off – valuation of disputed specific property may be applied as set-off against a decretal sum under a consent judgment. * Restitution – depreciation and hire claims require pleading to be awarded.	12 November 2013
DFCU Bank Ltd v Mukiibi & 3 Ors (Civil Suit No. 195 of 2012) [2013] UGCommC 187 (8 November 2013) A director may be sued personally for alleged professional negligence or fraud without a prior court order lifting the corporate veil. Company law – corporate veil – Order 38 CPR applies to company matters under Companies Act, not ordinary third‑party tort/contract claims; Civil procedure – competence of suit against director without prior lifting of veil; Company officers – personal liability for negligence/default – Companies Act ss.206, 405 (indemnity and relief); Professional negligence – duty of care, foreseeability and proximity (Hedley Byrne principles); Surveyors Registration Act – registration and practising certificate apply to natural persons; integrity of professional responsibility.	8 November 2013
Atukwase v Attorney General (HCT-00-CC-MA 437 of 2013) [2013] UGCommC 183 (5 November 2013) Rule 11’s 30-day period for the Attorney General to file a defence is constitutional; defence filed within 30 days was timely. Government Proceedings Rules — Rule 11 (30-day defence period) — constitutional validity; Order VIII r1(2) (15 days) — procedural disparity justified by practical necessities of defending the State; default judgment — inadmissible where defence filed within Rule 11 period; equality under the Constitution — contextual and may require equality of outcome.	5 November 2013
Ndaula v Barclays Bank Uganda Ltd (HCCS 290 of 2010) [2013] UGCommC 181 (1 November 2013) Sale by mortgagee delivered transfer forms; purchaser refunded, awarded expenses, interest and costs; breach and general damages denied. Contract — Interpretation of sale agreement between mortgagee-vendor and purchaser; Mortgage law — power of mortgagee to sell; Registration of Titles Act s59 — conclusive effect of certificate of title; Effect of refund "without prejudice" — discharge of sale as to consideration but preservation of other claims; Damages — recoverability of consequential outlays versus brokerage and general damages; Interest and costs awarded.	1 November 2013
Orient Bank Ltd v Avi Enterprises Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2013) [2013] UGCommC 182 (1 November 2013) An appeal was dismissed because the originating chamber summons was served after the 21‑day period without timely extension application. Civil procedure – originating chamber summons under Advocates (Taxation of Costs) Regulations – service within 21 days under Order V rule 1 – failure to apply for extension within 15 days renders summons expired and appeal incompetent; Taxation – interlocutory costs may be taxed but taxation before final disposal is practice, not per se illegality; Clerical/mathematical errors in taxation are correctable by taxing officer or under s.99 Civil Procedure Act; Requirements for certified copies and competent affidavits relevant but procedural nullity was dispositive.	1 November 2013