Wakilii

Allan Rukundo v African Kings Uganda Limited and 2 Others (Civil Suit 151 of 2022)

High Court · [2026] UGCOMMC 248 · 2026 Preliminary Objection Upheld — Suit Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Ruling on preliminary objection to jurisdiction in first instance civil suit for breach of contract
Decision
Suit dismissed for lack of territorial jurisdiction

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The High Court dismissed the suit for lack of jurisdiction. Where a contract was made in South Sudan, involved a South Sudanese registered vehicle, was to be performed in South Sudan, and the parties intended it to be governed by South Sudanese law, the Ugandan court lacks territorial jurisdiction under section 15 of the Civil Procedure Act. The cause of action arose wholly in South Sudan, not Uganda.

Outcome

Suit dismissed for lack of territorial jurisdiction

Facts

On 28 April 2016, while in Juba, South Sudan, the plaintiff entered into a contract with the first defendant's employees to rent his car bearing South Sudanese registration number CT 282T for the first defendant's project in South Sudan. The contract document was entitled 'Republic of Sudan'. The first defendant was registered in Uganda. The plaintiff brought suit in the High Court of Uganda (Commercial Division) for breach of contract against the defendants jointly and severally. When the matter came up for hearing, the first defendant raised a preliminary objection challenging the court's jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

Issues

  1. Whether the High Court of Uganda (Commercial Division) has jurisdiction to entertain a suit arising from a contract made and to be performed in South Sudan.

Orders

  • Preliminary objection upheld.
  • Suit dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
  • Each party to bear their own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Jurisdiction — Territorial Jurisdiction — Contracts Made and Performed Abroad
Where a contract was made in a foreign jurisdiction, was to be performed in that jurisdiction, and the parties intended it to be governed by the laws of that jurisdiction, a Ugandan court lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain a suit arising from that contract under section 15 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Preliminary Objections — Jurisdiction — Timing
A preliminary objection that the court lacks jurisdiction may be raised at any time, even if not raised in the written statement of defence, because jurisdiction is a creature of statute and proceedings conducted without jurisdiction are a nullity.
Jurisdiction — Cause of Action in Contract Suits
In suits arising out of contract, the cause of action arises at the place where the contract was made, where it was to be performed or its performance completed, or where payment was to be made, as provided by section 15 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (5)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Allan Rukundo v African Kings Uganda Limited and 2 Others (Civil Suit 151 of 2022) [2026] UGCommC 248 (23 March 2026)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.