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
5 judgments
Advanced search
All years
Filters
  • Filters
  • Alphabet
Sort by:
5 judgments
Citation
Judgment date
August 2013
Western Highland Creameries & Anor v Stanbic Bank Uganda Ltd (Taxation Appeal No./ Reference 10 of 2013) [2013] UGCommC 151 (30 August 2013)
Registrar breached the applicant's right to be heard; instruction fees must be calculated per the Sixth Schedule when value is ascertainable.
Civil procedure – Taxation of costs – Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Rules (Sixth Schedule) – Item 1(a)(iv) mandatory calculation where subject matter ascertainable; taxing master’s discretion limited to specific statutory certificates. Constitutional law – Right to fair hearing (Article 28) – party entitled to be heard on remitted taxation issues; ex parte recalculation without notice invalid. Taxation – refunds only where overpayment established on proper reassessment. Interpretation – prior authorities based on revoked or different rules distinguishable; rules to be applied literally where clear.
 30 August 2013
Simon Tendo Kabenge Advocates & Anor v Mineral Access Systems Ltd (HCT-00-CC-MA 570 of 2011) [2013] UGCommC 150 (27 August 2013)
Respondent’s defence and counterclaim struck out for non-payment of fees and disobedience; default judgment entered despite timely filing.
Civil procedure – computation of time – day of service excluded when computing prescribed days; filing effected by registry receipt, sealing and dating – court fees – alteration/reuse of receipt and non-payment – disobedience of peremptory court order – striking out pleadings and default judgment.
 27 August 2013
Incargo Freighters & Agents Ltd v Commissioner of Customs Uganda Revenue Authority (Civil Suit No. 513 of 2012) [2013] UGCommC 137 (7 August 2013)
Preliminary objection that defendant complied with later court orders was premature; factual disputes required full hearing and evidence.
Civil procedure — preliminary points of law — Order 6 r.28–29 CPR — point of law should be decided only where facts relevant to it are clear and undisputed; otherwise evidence required. Customs control — impounding of imported goods — need to establish lawful basis for seizure prior to any interim order. Interlocutory orders in related proceedings may affect subsequent suits; factual chronology and final orders must be clarified before dismissing on point of law. Contempt/compliance — party served with order must comply, but applicability depends on timing and scope of order.
 7 August 2013
Testmony Motors Ltd v Commssioner of Customs Uganda Revenue Authority (Civil Suit No. 212 of 2012) [2013] UGCommC 139 (7 August 2013)
Respondent’s blanket suspension of the transaction-value customs method was ultra vires; applicant awarded reassessment, refund, damages and costs.
Administrative law – ultra vires act: Commissioner’s directive suspending statutory valuation method unlawful; Customs valuation – primacy of transaction value and sequential application under s122 and Fourth Schedule (EACCMA); Fallback method permissible only where conditions met; Remedies – reassessment, refund with interest, aggravated damages and costs.
 7 August 2013
Kato v Muhlbauer & Anor (Civil Suit No. 186 of 2010) [2013] UGCommC 136 (5 August 2013)
A claimant cannot recover commission or quantum meruit for services tainted by illegality in influencing public procurement; suit dismissed.
Contract law – commission agreements – sufficiency of evidence for oral commission agreements; Public procurement and anti‑corruption – undue influence, gifts to procurement officials, illegality renders contract unenforceable; Quantum meruit – illegality bars restitution.
 5 August 2013