Uganda Case Law

CIC General Insurance Limited v Mutabazi (Application 2 of 2024)

CIC General Insurance Limited v Mutabazi (Application 2 of 2024) [2024] UGIAT 3 (14 May 2024)

Court

Insurance Appeals Tribunal (Uganda)

Case number

Application 2 of 2024

Judges

Nangono Namakiika, chairperson, Mayinja. Panel Member, Okotha, Panel Member, Nabasirye - Panel Member

The Tribunal found that both the Applicant and Respondent were in breach of the Insurance Act, 2017 by making commission payments to unlicensed intermediaries, specifically Viva 365 Insurance Brokers, and that such illegality cannot be ignored by the court. The evidence showed that the Applicant used the Respondent as a conduit for remitting commissions to Kenyan brokers, and both parties were liable for the breach. Regarding the quantum of premiums generated from Platinum Credit, the Tribunal determined that neither party provided reliable evidence to establish the actual amount, and the IRA…

Source excerpt

• Agency Agreement
• Insurance Commissions
• Unlicensed Intermediaries
• Regulatory Compliance
• Burden Of Proof

American Procurement Company, Inc (Amproc, Inc) v Arigye

American Procurement Company, Inc (Amproc, Inc) v Arigye (Civil Suit 664 of 2021) [2024] UGCommC 268 (31 January 2024)

Court

Commercial Court of Uganda

Case number

Civil Suit 664 of 2021

Judge

Anna B. Mugenyi, J

The Court found that the agency agreement (MOU) between the Plaintiff and Defendant was unconscionable and illegal due to the grossly unfair distribution of compensation (sixty percent to the agent) and the execution of an irrevocable power of attorney. The contract was contrary to public policy, as it monetised access to public services and undermined the interests of the actual landowners. The Court held that the agreement was void and unenforceable, dismissing the Plaintiff's suit and granting the Defendant's counterclaim for refund of payments made under the void contract. The Court decli…

Source excerpt

• Agency Agreement
• Contract Enforceability
• Unconscionable Terms
• Public Policy
• Remedies For Breach

Osman Kassim Ramathan v Century Bottling Company Ltd

Osman Kassim Ramathan v Century Bottling Company Ltd (Civil Application 35 of 2019) [2020] UGSC 12 (13 March 2020)

Court

Supreme Court of Uganda

Case number

Civil Application 35 of 2019

Judge

Opio-Aweri, JSC

The Supreme Court found that the applicant had filed a competent notice of appeal and a substantive application for stay of execution, both of which were pending. The court held that the process of taxation of costs forms part of the execution process and thus constitutes an imminent threat of execution. The court emphasized that the discretion to grant an interim stay must be exercised judiciously and is not a mere formality. Given the existence of a substantive application and a real threat of execution, the court determined that it was appropriate to grant an interim stay to preserve the s…

Source excerpt

• Stay Of Execution
• Agency Agreement
• Breach Of Contract
• Interim Orders

Mustapha Ramathan Ta Bombo Wholesalers and Another v Century Bottling Company Limited

Mustapha Ramathan Ta Bombo Wholesalers and Another v Century Bottling Company Limited (Civil Appeal 40 of 2010) [2019] UGCA 2096 (19 August 2019)

Court

Court of Appeal of Uganda

Case number

Civil Appeal 40 of 2010

Judge

Egonda-Ntende, JA, Musoke, JA, Obura, JA

The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal over special damages and lost profits, holding that the appellants failed to strictly prove the claimed losses.

• Breach Of Contract
• Agency Agreement
• Special Damages
• Termination Of Agency
• Proof Of Loss
• Special-damages

Wasukira & 2 Ors v Harmony Group Ltd (HCT-04-CV-CS-0040-2009)

Wasukira & 2 Ors v Harmony Group Ltd (HCT-04-CV-CS-0040-2009) [2011] UGHC 28 (15 March 2011)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

HCT-04-CV-CS-0040-2009

Judge

Musota, J

The suit is based on an unstamped commission agreement, which is inadmissible in evidence under Section 42 of the Stamps Act. The plaintiffs did not seek leave of court to pay the required stamp duty, rendering the agreement unenforceable. Furthermore, the 3rd plaintiff was not incorporated at the time the alleged contract was made, and the law does not permit a company to ratify or adopt contracts made prior to its incorporation. The pleadings do not demonstrate a legally protected interest or a valid cause of action against the defendant. Therefore, the suit is struck out for non-disclosure…

Source excerpt

• Agency Agreement
• Commission Claims
• Preincorporation Contracts
• Stamp Duty Requirements
• Cause Of Action
• Contract Enforceability