Uganda Case Law

Government of the United Kingdom v Kagoro

Government of the United Kingdom v Kagoro (Miscellaneous Application 223 of 2019) [2023] UGHCCD 152 (1 June 2023)

Court

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Case number

Miscellaneous Application 223 of 2019

Judge

Nambayo, J

The court found that the Applicant met the conditions for grant of leave to appeal, as there were prima facie grounds meriting judicial consideration regarding the application of sovereign immunity and the nature of the alleged commercial transaction. The trial Judge's finding that the Applicant was engaged in commercial activity justified the High Court's jurisdiction, but the appellate court should re-evaluate the evidence to determine whether a commercial transaction existed and whether sovereign immunity applies. The court also found no objection to staying proceedings pending appeal, as…

Source excerpt

• Leave To Appeal
• Sovereign Immunity
• Restrictive Immunity
• Jurisdiction Of Court
• Commercial Transaction
• Stay Of Proceedings

The Government Of The United Kingdom v Kagoro

The Government Of The United Kingdom v Kagoro (Miscellaneous Application 223 of 2019) [2023] UGHCCD 151 (1 June 2023)

Court

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Case number

Miscellaneous Application 223 of 2019

Judge

Nambayo, J

The High Court granted the Government of the United Kingdom leave to appeal and stayed proceedings in a suit concerning sovereign immunity and alleged commercial activity.

• Leave To Appeal
• Sovereign Immunity
• Stay Of Proceedings
• Jurisdiction Of Court
• Leave-to-appeal
• Sovereign-immunity

Rodrigues v British High Commission

Rodrigues v British High Commission (Civil Appeal 8 of 1987) [1988] UGCA 1 (11 January 1988)

Court

Court of Appeal of Uganda

Case number

Civil Appeal 8 of 1987

Judge

Manyindo, DCJ, Lubogo, Ag. JA, Odoki, JA

The Court of Appeal held that the British High Commission, as a diplomatic mission, is not a legal person with capacity to be sued under Ugandan law; only the United Kingdom, as a foreign state, is so incorporated for purposes of holding land and litigation. The court affirmed the doctrine of restrictive sovereign immunity, recognizing that commercial transactions by states are not immune from suit. However, since the respondent was not a legal entity, the action was misconceived and not maintainable against it. The court further clarified that immunity from execution does not bar the court's…

Source excerpt

• Sovereign Immunity
• Diplomatic Immunity
• Capacity To Sue And Be Sued
• Commercial Transactions By States
• Registration Of Titles
• Enforcement Of Judgments