[2018] UGCommC 14

[2018] UGCommC 14

The court held that while parties may agree to an exclusive jurisdiction clause, such a clause cannot override the constitutional jurisdiction of the Ugandan High Court, especially where the contract was executed and performed in Uganda and all parties and witnesses are resident in Uganda. Enforcing the foreign jurisdiction clause would be prejudicial, costly, and could deny the Respondent access to justice. The Application was also defective for omitting a fundamental party to the main suit, which would result in condemning that party unheard. The court found that the exclusive jurisdiction clause was one-sided and did not reflect a mutual choice of forum. Accordingly, the High Court...

Citation
[2018] UGCommC 14
Parties
Applicant: ICCO Cooperation Uganda; Respondent: Trivision Uganda Limited
Court
Commercial Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
23 May 2018
Case Number
Miscellaneous Application None of 2018
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection to Jurisdiction
Outcome
application denied
Legal Topics
Exclusive Jurisdiction Clauses, Contractual Dispute Resolution, Forum Selection, Access to Justice, Breach of Contract
Source Language
English
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Exclusive Jurisdiction Clauses Contractual Dispute Resolution Forum Selection Access to Justice Breach of Contract

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ICCO Cooperation Uganda

Applicant

Trivision Uganda Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection to Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court of Uganda has jurisdiction over the Applicant in light of the exclusive jurisdiction clause in the contract.
  2. 2 Whether the suit should be dismissed against the Applicant based on the forum selection clause.
  3. 3 Whether enforcing the exclusive jurisdiction clause would deny the Respondent access to justice.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that while parties may agree to an exclusive jurisdiction clause, such a clause cannot override the constitutional jurisdiction of the Ugandan High Court, especially where the contract was executed and performed in Uganda and all parties and witnesses are resident in Uganda. Enforcing the foreign jurisdiction clause would be prejudicial, costly, and could deny the Respondent access to justice. The Application was also defective for omitting a fundamental party to the main suit, which would result in condemning that party unheard. The court found that the exclusive jurisdiction clause was one-sided and did not reflect a mutual choice of forum. Accordingly, the High Court...

Court Disposition

application denied

Orders

  • The Application is denied.
  • Costs to abide the results of the main suit.