alcon international limited v standard charted bank of uganda and ors reference 6 of 2010 2013 eacj 6 2 september 2013

alcon international limited v standard charted bank of uganda and ors reference 6 of 2010 2013 eacj 6 2 september 2013

The 1st and 3rd Respondents are not proper parties under Article 30(1) of the EAC Treaty as they are neither Partner States nor Institutions of the Community. The Claimant has no cause of action as the bank guarantee and related judgments were set aside by the Supreme Court of Uganda, leaving no live dispute. The EACJ lacks jurisdiction over acts predating the entry into force of the Common Market Protocol, as the principle of non-retroactivity applies. The Reference is dismissed for lack of merit and jurisdiction.

Citation
alcon international limited v standard charted bank of uganda and ors reference 6 of 2010 2013 eacj 6 2 september 2013
Parties
Claimant: Alcon International Limited; 1st Respondent: Standard Chartered Bank of Uganda; 2nd Respondent: Attorney General of Uganda on behalf of the Republic of Uganda; 3rd Respondent: Registrar of the High Court of Uganda
Court
EACJ
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
2 September 2013
Procedural Posture
Reference / Judgment at First Instance
Outcome
Reference dismissed
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction of EACJ, Non Retroactivity of Treaties, Cross Border Investment Protection, Bank Guarantees, Arbitration Awards, Interpretation of EAC Treaty and Protocols
Source Language
English
International Law Treaty Law Commercial Law Jurisdiction of EACJ Non Retroactivity of Treaties Cross Border Investment Protection Bank Guarantees Arbitration Awards +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alcon International Limited

Claimant

Standard Chartered Bank of Uganda

1st Respondent

Attorney General of Uganda on behalf of the Republic of Uganda

2nd Respondent

Registrar of the High Court of Uganda

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Reference / Judgment at First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 1st and 3rd Respondents can be sued under Article 30(1) of the EAC Treaty
  2. 2 Whether the Claimant has a cause of action against the Respondents
  3. 3 Whether the EACJ has jurisdiction over acts predating the Common Market Protocol

Ratio Decidendi

The 1st and 3rd Respondents are not proper parties under Article 30(1) of the EAC Treaty as they are neither Partner States nor Institutions of the Community. The Claimant has no cause of action as the bank guarantee and related judgments were set aside by the Supreme Court of Uganda, leaving no live dispute. The EACJ lacks jurisdiction over acts predating the entry into force of the Common Market Protocol, as the principle of non-retroactivity applies. The Reference is dismissed for lack of merit and jurisdiction.

Court Disposition

Reference dismissed

Orders

  • Each party to bear its own costs