Uganda Case Law

Core Minerals Geologists Limited & 3 Others v Zhou

Core Minerals Geologists Limited & 3 Others v Zhou (Miscellaneous Application 1164 of 2024) [2024] UGCommC 340 (22 November 2024)

Court

Commercial Court of Uganda

Case number

Miscellaneous Application 1164 of 2024

Judge

Mutesi, J

The court found that the respondent's affidavit in reply was incurably defective as it was not notarized by a person authorized under Ugandan law, specifically Section 84(c) of the Evidence Act, and thus struck it off the record. The dispute in the main suit arose from the performance of an agency contract containing a binding arbitration clause, making it subject to arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Consequently, the High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain, hear, or determine the suit. The application to dismiss Civil Suit No. 0915 of 2018 was allowed, and the suit…

Source excerpt

• Arbitration Agreement
• Jurisdiction Of High Court
• Competence Of Affidavit
• Agency Contract Disputes
• Striking Out Affidavit
• Dismissal For Want Of Jurisdiction

Global Center Limited v Price Costco International Inc.

Global Center Limited v Price Costco International Inc. (Miscellaneous Application 766 of 2023) [2024] UGCommC 81 (30 January 2024)

Court

Commercial Court of Uganda

Case number

Miscellaneous Application 766 of 2023

Judge

Mutesi, J

The High Court held that pending trademark opposition did not bar a passing off suit, and dismissed the application to strike out the plaint.

• Trademark Registration
• Passing Off
• Jurisdictional Overlap
• Competence Of Affidavit
• Advocate Instructions
• Trademark-law

Attorney General of Uganda v Media Legal Defence Initiative and Others (Appeal 3 of 2016)

Attorney General of Uganda v Media Legal Defence Initiative and Others (Appeal 3 of 2016) [2017] EACJ 50 (26 May 2017) (Appellate Division)

Court

East African Court of Justice

Case number

Appeal 3 of 2016

Judge

Kiryabwire JA, Nkurunziza VP, Ringera JA, Rutakangwa JA, Ugirashebuja P

The Appellate Division found that the Trial Court erred in law and procedure by failing to determine the preliminary objection regarding the competence of the supporting affidavit before proceeding to the merits of the Application. This omission constituted an incurable procedural irregularity, vitiating the Trial Court's ruling. The Appellate Division held that the requirements of Rule 21 of the East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure were not properly addressed, and the failure to resolve the preliminary objection prejudiced the Appellant and denied due process. Consequently, the i…

Source excerpt

• Preliminary Objection
• Procedural Irregularity
• Competence Of Affidavit
• Notice Of Motion Requirements