alcon international limited v standard chartered bank of uganda and ors reference 6 of 2010 2013 eacj 57 2 september 2013

alcon international limited v standard chartered bank of uganda and ors reference 6 of 2010 2013 eacj 57 2 september 2013

The Court lacks jurisdiction over the Reference because the 1st and 3rd Respondents are neither Partner States nor Institutions of the Community, and the acts complained of occurred before the coming into force of the Protocol, which does not apply retroactively. The Bank Guarantee ceased to exist after the Supreme Court of Uganda set aside the underlying arbitral and court decisions, leaving no live dispute or cause of action before the Court.

Citation
alcon international limited v standard chartered bank of uganda and ors reference 6 of 2010 2013 eacj 57 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 Division
Outcome
Reference dismissed
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction of Regional Courts, Non Retroactivity of Treaties, Cross Border Investment Protection, Interpretation of Treaties, Bank Guarantees, Arbitration Awards
Source Language
English
International Law Treaty Law Commercial Law Jurisdiction of Regional Courts Non Retroactivity of Treaties Cross Border Investment Protection Interpretation of Treaties Bank Guarantees +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 4 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 Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Reference is properly before the Court as against the 1st and 3rd Respondents under Article 30(1) of the Treaty
  2. 2 Whether the Claimant has a cause of action against the 2nd Respondent
  3. 3 Whether the Court has jurisdiction over acts that took place before the coming into force of the Protocol

Ratio Decidendi

The Court lacks jurisdiction over the Reference because the 1st and 3rd Respondents are neither Partner States nor Institutions of the Community, and the acts complained of occurred before the coming into force of the Protocol, which does not apply retroactively. The Bank Guarantee ceased to exist after the Supreme Court of Uganda set aside the underlying arbitral and court decisions, leaving no live dispute or cause of action before the Court.

Court Disposition

Reference dismissed

Orders

  • All complaints against the 1st and 3rd Respondents are dismissed.
  • The Reference is dismissed in its entirety.