alcon international limited v standard charted bank of uganda and ors application 2 of 2011 2012 eacj 5 16 march 2012

alcon international limited v standard charted bank of uganda and ors application 2 of 2011 2012 eacj 5 16 march 2012

The First Instance Division erred in law by striking out the Reference on the basis of a disputed factual issue rather than a pure point of law, and by failing to determine its own jurisdiction and address all preliminary objections as required. The Appellate Division set aside the ruling and reinstated the Reference for determination on the merits.

Citation
alcon international limited v standard charted bank of uganda and ors application 2 of 2011 2012 eacj 5 16 march 2012
Parties
Appellant: Alcon International Limited; 1st Respondent: The Standard Chartered Bank of Uganda; 2nd Respondent: The 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
16 March 2012
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Ruling on Preliminary Objections
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction, Preliminary Objections, Treaty Interpretation, Appellate Procedure
Source Language
English
International Law Regional Integration Law Civil Procedure Jurisdiction Preliminary Objections Treaty Interpretation Appellate Procedure

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alcon International Limited

Appellant

The Standard Chartered Bank of Uganda

1st Respondent

The Attorney General of Uganda on behalf of the Republic of Uganda

2nd Respondent

Registrar of the High Court of Uganda

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Ruling on Preliminary Objections

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the First Instance Division erred in striking out the Reference before determining its own jurisdiction
  2. 2 Whether the Reference was properly before the Court as against the 1st and 3rd Respondents
  3. 3 Whether the Reference was time barred

Ratio Decidendi

The First Instance Division erred in law by striking out the Reference on the basis of a disputed factual issue rather than a pure point of law, and by failing to determine its own jurisdiction and address all preliminary objections as required. The Appellate Division set aside the ruling and reinstated the Reference for determination on the merits.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Ruling and Order of the First Instance Division dated 24.9.2011 set aside
  • Reference No. 6 of 2010 reinstated