alcon international limited v the standard chartered bank of uganda and ors appeal 2 of 2011 2011 eacj 59 24 august 2011

alcon international limited v the standard chartered bank of uganda and ors appeal 2 of 2011 2011 eacj 59 24 august 2011

The First Instance Division erred by striking out the Reference on a ground that was not a valid preliminary objection and by failing to determine its own jurisdiction and address all agreed preliminary issues. The Appellate Division set aside the ruling and reinstated the Reference for determination on the merits.

Citation
alcon international limited v the standard chartered bank of uganda and ors appeal 2 of 2011 2011 eacj 59 24 august 2011
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
24 August 2011
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction of Regional Courts, Preliminary Objections, Enforcement of Arbitral Awards, Interpretation of Treaties, Parallel Proceedings
Source Language
English
International Law Regional Integration Law Arbitration Civil Procedure Jurisdiction of Regional Courts Preliminary Objections Enforcement of Arbitral Awards Interpretation of Treaties +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 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

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 respondents
  3. 3 Whether the Reference was time barred

Ratio Decidendi

The First Instance Division erred by striking out the Reference on a ground that was not a valid preliminary objection and by failing to determine its own jurisdiction and address all agreed preliminary issues. 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