Democratic Governance Facility v Uganda Youth Network and 4 Others (Civil Suit 954 of 2020)

Observed later treatment

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.

Holding

The court held that the Democratic Governance Facility, an intergovernmental organisation established by treaty between sovereign states, possesses both international and domestic legal personality and therefore has locus standi to sue in Ugandan courts. The preliminary objection was overruled.

Outcome

Preliminary objection dismissed; suit to proceed to hearing on the merits

Facts

The Democratic Governance Facility (DGF), a multi-donor facility established by eight development partners under a government-to-government agreement with Uganda in July 2011, instituted suit seeking recovery of UGX 336,385,421 and UGX 180,842,745 arising from alleged breach of partnership agreements by the defendants. When the suit came up for hearing, the defendants raised a preliminary objection contending that the plaintiff had no capacity to sue in that name, arguing that the DGF was a non-existent entity with no separate legal existence and that any suit should be brought by the individual development partners or by the Royal Danish Embassy which the DGF claimed to act through.

Issues

1. Whether the Democratic Governance Facility has locus standi to sue in its own name.
2. Whether the Democratic Governance Facility possesses legal personality under international law.
3. Whether the Democratic Governance Facility possesses domestic legal personality in Uganda.
4. Whether the Democratic Governance Facility enjoys diplomatic immunity that would bar it from suing in Ugandan courts.

Orders

• Preliminary objection overruled.
• The plaint discloses a cause of action against each of the defendants.
• The reference to the DGF suing through the Royal Danish Embassy struck out as superfluous.
• Costs of the objection to abide the result of the suit.
• Suit fixed for mention on 11th November 2021 at 9:00 am.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (6)

• Civil Procedure Rules Order 6 rule 28
• Diplomatic Privileges Act
• Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961 Article 32
• Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961 Article 37
• Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969 Article 2(1)(a)
• Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969 Article 31(1)

Cases cited (8)

• Mukisa Biscuit v West End Distributors [1969] EA 696
• Omondi v National Bank of Kenya Ltd and Others [2001] 1 EA 177
• Njau and Others v City Council of Nairobi [1976-1985] 1 EA 397
• Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations, Advisory Opinion: I.C.J. Reports 1949, p. 174
• International Tin Council v. Amalgamet Inc., 645 F. Supp. 879 (S.D.N.Y. 1986); 524 NYS 2d [1988] p. 971
• Broadbent v. Organisation of American States, 202 U.S. App. D.C. 27, 628 F.2d 27, [D.C. Cir. 1980]
• National City Bank of New York v. Republic of China, 348 U.S. 356 (1955)
• Ayigihugu & Company Advocates v Mary Muteteri Munyankindi [1988-90] HCB 161

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

• Megha Industries (U) Limited v Royal Mabati Uganda Limited (Trademark Application 59819 of 2017)

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