Uganda Case Law

Libyan Arab Foreign Investiments Company (LAFICO) v Southern Investiments Limited

Libyan Arab Foreign Investiments Company (LAFICO) v Southern Investiments Limited (Civil Appeal No. 198 of 2014) [2022] UGCA 259 (18 October 2022)

Court

Court of Appeal of Uganda

Case number

Civil Appeal No. 198 of 2014

Judge

Madrama, JA, Mulyagonja, JA, Barishaki, JA

The Court of Appeal held that the respondent's cause of action accrued upon the final payment by the Government of Uganda in July 2009, making the suit filed in 2011 within the statutory limitation period for contractual claims. The appellant's failure to apply for stay and referral to arbitration at the appropriate stage meant the trial court was correct to proceed with the suit. The agreement to accept USD 2,560,628 as full and final settlement was binding on the respondent under the doctrine of promissory estoppel, as the respondent acted on the promise. However, the appellant failed to pr…

Source excerpt

• Commission Agreements
• Contractual Limitation Periods
• Arbitration Clauses
• Promissory Estoppel
• Agency And Principal Liability

Libyan Arab Foreign Investment Co (LAFICO) v Southern Investments Limited

Libyan Arab Foreign Investment Co (LAFICO) v Southern Investments Limited (Civil Appeal No. 198 of 2014) [2022] UGCA 366 (18 October 2022)

Court

Court of Appeal of Uganda

Case number

Civil Appeal No. 198 of 2014

Judge

Cheborion-Barishaki, JA, Madrama, JA, Mulyagonja, JA

The Court of Appeal held that the respondent's suit was not time barred, as the cause of action accrued on 31st July 2009 when the last payment was made by the Government of Uganda, and the suit filed in 2011 was within the six-year limitation period for contract claims. The appellant's request for referral to arbitration was rejected because no timely application for stay was made; raising the issue only in final submissions was insufficient. On the substantive claim, the court found that the parties entered a subsequent agreement in January 2006, under which the respondent accepted USD 2,56…

Source excerpt

• Commission Agreements
• Contractual Limitation Periods
• Arbitration Clauses
• Agency And Principal Liability
• Promissory Estoppel

Mugumya v Chen Lianren

Mugumya v Chen Lianren (Civil Suit 607 of 2017) [2021] UGCommC 143 (20 May 2021)

Court

Commercial Court of Uganda

Case number

Civil Suit 607 of 2017

Judge

Stephen Mubiru, J

The court found that although the written memorandum of understanding was silent on commission, the oral agreement regarding commission was not inconsistent with the written terms and was corroborated by documentary evidence. Applying the business efficacy and officious bystander tests, the court implied the commission term into the contract, as it was necessary for the distributorship arrangement to make business sense. The plaintiff proved his entitlement to the outstanding commission after deducting his acknowledged debt. The defendant failed to provide a legitimate legal excuse for non-pa…

Source excerpt

• Breach Of Contract
• Commission Agreements
• Implied Terms
• Specific Performance

In Re: Trevor Mugumu (Child) (Family Cause No. 68 of 2019)

In Re: Trevor Mugumu (Child) (Family Cause No. 68 of 2019) [2020] UGHCFD 2 (17 March 2020)

Court

HC: Family Division (Uganda)

Case number

Family Cause No. 68 of 2019

Judge

Kitariisibwa-Katunguka, J

The High Court held a land commission agreement illegal to the extent it monetized access to public compensation, found the 50% fee unconscionable, and dismissed the suit.

• Illegality Of Contract
• Unconscionable Terms
• Public Policy In Contracts
• Real Estate Brokerage
• Commission Agreements
• Illegality-of-contract

Namanya & Another v Mukalagi

Namanya & Another v Mukalagi (CIVIL SUIT NO. 237 OF 2012) [2020] UGHCCD 6 (28 February 2020)

Court

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Case number

CIVIL SUIT NO. 237 OF 2012

Judge

Wolayo, J

The court found that the commission agreement between the Plaintiffs and Defendant was illegal on public policy grounds because it monetized access to the Uganda Land Commission's Land Fund, a public service intended to be free unless charges are specifically imposed by law. The 50% commission term was deemed unconscionable, as no reasonable landowner would agree to split the proceeds from a land sale equally with a broker, especially under circumstances where the Defendant was in a weaker bargaining position and the Plaintiffs leveraged their connections to extract an excessive commission. A…

Source excerpt

• Illegality Of Contract
• Public Policy In Contracts
• Unconscionable Terms
• Real Estate Brokerage
• Commission Agreements

Maviri v Jomayi Property Consultants Limited

Maviri v Jomayi Property Consultants Limited (Civil Suit No. 334 of 2011) [2014] UGCommC 232 (17 February 2014)

Court

Commercial Court of Uganda

Case number

Civil Suit No. 334 of 2011

Judge

Adonyo, J

The High Court of Uganda found for the plaintiff on unpaid commission, wages, and land value, with a Ug. Shs. 3,000,000 set-off on the defendant’s counterclaim.

• Commission Agreements
• Real Estate Agency
• Land Purchase Disputes
• Contractual Liability
• Trespass To Land
• Commission-agreements

Giuliano Garigio v Claudio Casadio

Giuliano Garigio v Claudio Casadio (Civil Appeal 13 of 2010) [2013] UGSC 1 (29 January 2013)

Court

Supreme Court of Uganda

Case number

Civil Appeal 13 of 2010

The Supreme Court held that the Registrar of the Court of Appeal does not have the power to grant leave to file a Notice of Appeal out of time for appeals to the Supreme Court. Practice Direction No. 01 of 2004 only empowers Registrars to extend time for acts relating to the Court of Appeal, not the Supreme Court. The Notice of Appeal in this case was filed outside the prescribed 14-day period, and the purported extension granted by the Registrar was invalid. The withdrawal of the respondent's objection did not cure the procedural defect. Consequently, the appeal was incompetent and was struc…

Source excerpt

• Notice Of Appeal Timeliness
• Powers Of Registrar
• Appeal Procedure
• Commission Agreements
• Joint Venture Disputes

EDCO v Serunjogi

EDCO v Serunjogi (Miscellaneous Application No. 391 of 2010) [2011] UGCommC 2001 (8 April 2011)

Court

Commercial Court of Uganda

Case number

Miscellaneous Application No. 391 of 2010

The court found that the applicant raised bona fide triable issues, specifically regarding the date of the commission agreement and whether the respondents introduced the buyer to the applicant. The existence of conflicting affidavits and documentary evidence on these points means that the facts cannot be determined at the summary judgment stage. The court held that these matters require judicial consideration in a full trial. Accordingly, unconditional leave to defend the suit is granted, subject to the condition that Mr. Evarist Turyakira is made a party to the main suit, so that the truth…

Source excerpt

• Summary Judgment
• Commission Agreements
• Triable Issue Standard
• Brokerage Fee Disputes

Manibhai Devidas Patel v Waduwa and Another

Manibhai Devidas Patel v Waduwa and Another (Civil Appeal 7 of 1998) [1998] UGCA 33 (1 December 1998)

Court

Court of Appeal of Uganda

Case number

Civil Appeal 7 of 1998

Judge

Mayindo, DCJ, Twinomujuni, JA, Kitumba, JA

The Court of Appeal held that the appellant’s commission claim was premature because payment depended on completion of the sale, which had not occurred.

• Contract Enforcement
• Commission Agreements
• Pleadings And Issues
• Counterclaims
• Contract-law
• Property-sale