Uganda Case Law

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

Kainamura Patrick v Lt. Ben Kachope and Others

Kainamura Patrick v Lt. Ben Kachope and Others (Civil Suit No. 59 of 2017) [2022] UGHCCD 259 (14 December 2022)

Court

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Case number

Civil Suit No. 59 of 2017

Judge

Musa Ssekaana, J

The High Court held that a commission-style agreement for recovering government payment was contrary to public policy, and the plaintiff's suit was dismissed with costs.

• Contract Enforcement
• Public Policy
• Misrepresentation
• Breach Of Contract
• Public-policy
• Contract-enforcement

Blue Pearls Company Limited v Britam Insurance Company Limited

Blue Pearls Company Limited v Britam Insurance Company Limited (Miscellaneous Cause 93 of 2021) [2022] UGCommC 181 (19 November 2022)

Court

Commercial Court of Uganda

Case number

Miscellaneous Cause 93 of 2021

Judge

Anna B. Mugenyi, J

The High Court set aside an arbitral award because it relied on unsigned insurance policies that were unenforceable under Ugandan contract law and contrary to public policy.

• Arbitration Award Setting Aside
• Public Policy
• Contract Formalities
• Insurance Contracts
• Arbitration-award-setting-aside
• Public-policy

Kobusingye v Zimbiha

Kobusingye v Zimbiha (Civil Appeal No. 69 of 2019) [2022] UGCA 201 (1 August 2022)

Court

Court of Appeal of Uganda

Case number

Civil Appeal No. 69 of 2019

Judge

Egonda-Ntende, JA, Kibeedi Mutangula, JA, Gashirabake, JA

The Court of Appeal held that the Memorandum of Understanding between the appellant and respondent was champertous and unenforceable under Ugandan law. The agreement was concluded before the Contracts Act 2010 came into force, so the common law applied. At common law, champerty and maintenance agreements are void and illegal, as they offend public policy by encouraging litigation for personal gain. The court found that the appellant's claim for 10% of the compensation awarded to the respondent was not made in good faith for reasonable recompense, but rather constituted an unlawful share in th…

Source excerpt

• Champerty And Maintenance
• Illegality Of Contracts
• Public Policy
• Quantum Meruit

Friendhelm Erwin Jost and Another v Roko Construction Limited and 2 Others

Friendhelm Erwin Jost and Another v Roko Construction Limited and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Civil Application 89 of 2021) [2022] UGCommC 110 (7 March 2022)

Court

Commercial Court of Uganda

Case number

Miscellaneous Civil Application 89 of 2021

Judge

Stephen Mubiru, J

The High Court set aside a consent judgment after finding material misrepresentation, mutual mistake, and enforceability problems arising from undisclosed settlement terms.

• Consent Judgments
• Setting Aside Judgments
• Shareholder Disputes
• Misrepresentation
• Mistake Of Fact
• Public Policy

Jean Humphrey v Tushabe

Jean Humphrey v Tushabe (Civil Suit No. 423 of 2010) [2021] UGHCLD 129 (12 March 2021)

Court

HC: Land Division (Uganda)

Case number

Civil Suit No. 423 of 2010

Judge

Kawesa, J

The High Court found that the late Alan J. Humphrey had an equitable interest in the suit property, treated the defendant as holding it in trust, and ordered sale and equal sharing of proceeds.

• Resulting Trust
• Beneficial Interest
• Succession And Administration Of Estates
• Indefeasibility Of Title
• Judicial Notice
• Public Policy

MK Creditors v Owora Patrick

MK Creditors v Owora Patrick (Civil Suit No. 533 of 2013) [2015] UGCommC 20 (29 January 2015)

Court

Commercial Court of Uganda

Case number

Civil Suit No. 533 of 2013

The High Court dismissed a credit suit after finding the loan agreement illegal for excessive interest and for a kibanja transfer clause contrary to land law.

• Money Lending
• Illegality Of Contract
• Mortgage On Kibanja
• Interest Rate Regulation
• Licensing Requirements
• Public Policy

National Social Security Fund and Another v Alcon International Limited

National Social Security Fund and Another v Alcon International Limited (Civil Appeal No 15 of 2009) [2013] UGSC 29 (8 February 2013)

Court

Supreme Court of Uganda

Case number

Civil Appeal No 15 of 2009

Judge

Odoki, CJ, Tsekooko, JSC, Katureebe, JSC, Kitumba, JSC, Kisaakye, JSC

The Supreme Court held that Alcon International Ltd (Uganda) had no cause of action against the appellants because the contract and co-financing agreement were signed by Alcon International Ltd (Kenya), and no valid assignment to Alcon Uganda was pleaded or proved. Clause 17 of the contract expressly prohibited assignment without NSSF's consent, which was neither sought nor obtained. The Court found that the arbitral award was procured by fraudulent misrepresentation and concealment of material facts, amounting to illegality and contrary to public policy. The trial judge erred in referring th…

Source excerpt

• Arbitration Awards
• Contract Assignment
• Fraudulent Misrepresentation
• Public Policy
• Privity Of Contract

Attorney General v Turyamureeba

Attorney General v Turyamureeba (Civil Suit 436 of 1989) [1991] UGHC 25 (16 May 1991)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

Civil Suit 436 of 1989

Judge

Tsekooko, J

The court found that the respondent had knowledge of the earlier suit (HCCS No. 488 of 1988) and that the subject matter in both suits was essentially the same vehicle, despite attempts to distinguish them. The respondent's abandonment of the earlier suit and subsequent institution of HCCS No. 436 of 1989 against the applicant amounted to a misrepresentation of facts and constituted fraud. The court held that the doctrine of res judicata did not strictly apply due to the difference in parties, but the existence of conflicting judgments on the same subject matter necessitated judicial interven…

Source excerpt

• Review Of Judgment
• Res Judicata
• Fraud In Judicial Proceedings
• Exparte Judgment
• Public Policy

Satardin v Mahomed and Another

Satardin v Mahomed and Another (Criminal Appeal No. 14 of 1928) [1928] EACA 3 (1 January 1928)

Court

East African Court of Appeal

Case number

Criminal Appeal No. 14 of 1928

Judge

Johnson AJ, Pickering CJ, Stephens ACJ

The Court of Appeal held that a betrothal contract arranged by a parent without the direct consent of the daughter is void and unenforceable in Uganda, whether under Mohammedan law or otherwise. The court affirmed that parents have no authority to contract marriage on behalf of their children. Marriage brokerage contracts are void as against public policy, and no rights arise under them. However, the appellant is entitled to sue for the return of presents and money given in contemplation of marriage if the marriage does not take place, but not for moral or intellectual damages or an injunctio…

Source excerpt

• Marriage Contracts
• Betrothal
• Parental Authority
• Mohammedan Law
• Return Of Gifts
• Public Policy