Wakilii

Egbert De Smet v Nakassanga (Civil Suit No. 387 of 2011)

High Court · [2017] UGCOMMC 135 · 2017 Preliminary Objection Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Ruling on preliminary objection challenging jurisdiction based on exclusive jurisdiction clause in loan agreement
Decision
Preliminary objection dismissed; matter to proceed to trial on the merits.

Observed later treatment

Treatment recorded in citing cases followed in 1 Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

Good law Followed in 1 case and applied in 0 cases, with no adverse treatment recorded. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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

A simple exclusive jurisdiction clause in a contract does not oust the unlimited original jurisdiction of the High Court conferred by Article 139(4) of the Constitution. Where the contract was substantially performed in Uganda, the defendant resides in Uganda, all witnesses and evidence are located in Uganda, and trial in the foreign forum would be prohibitively expensive and unreasonable, the High Court retains jurisdiction to entertain the matter.

Outcome

Preliminary objection dismissed; matter to proceed to trial on the merits.

Facts

The plaintiff filed a claim seeking recovery of €230,173 arising from a series of loan transactions granted to the defendant for establishing rental houses in Kampala and purchasing clothes and shoes for State House. The loan agreement contained a clause stating it could only be legally disputed by the Court of Commerce in Antwerp. When the suit came up for hearing, the defendant raised a preliminary objection that the High Court lacked jurisdiction due to the exclusive jurisdiction clause in favor of the Antwerp Court of Commerce.

Issues

  1. Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit notwithstanding an exclusive jurisdiction clause in the loan agreement conferring jurisdiction on the Court of Commerce in Antwerp.

Orders

  • Preliminary objection dismissed.
  • The case will proceed to trial.

Rules and key headnotes

Jurisdiction — High Court Jurisdiction — Exclusive Jurisdiction Clauses — Constitutional Limits
A simple exclusive jurisdiction clause in an enforceable contract does not oust the unlimited original jurisdiction of the High Court as conferred by Article 139(4) of the Constitution.
Foreign Jurisdiction Clauses — Forum Conveniens — Factors for Determination
In determining whether to exercise jurisdiction despite a foreign jurisdiction clause, the court must consider: (a) the location and availability of evidence; (b) relative convenience and expense of trial in Uganda versus the foreign court; (c) whether foreign law applies and differs from Ugandan law; (d) the connection of each party to each country; (e) whether the defendant genuinely desires trial in the foreign forum or seeks procedural advantage; and (f) whether the plaintiff would be prejudiced by suing in the foreign country.
Jurisdiction — Forum Conveniens — Place of Performance and Evidence
Where a contract was performed in Uganda, the defendant resides in Uganda, all witnesses and evidence are located in Uganda, and the cost of trial in the foreign forum would be prohibitively expensive and unreasonable, the High Court will exercise jurisdiction notwithstanding an exclusive foreign jurisdiction clause.
Jurisdiction — Foreign Jurisdiction Clauses — Avoidance of Liability
Where a defendant seeks to enforce an exclusive foreign jurisdiction clause but does not show why the case should be tried in the foreign forum where it would be prohibitively expensive, the court may infer that the defendant is seeking to avoid liability rather than genuinely desiring trial in the foreign court.

Legislation cited (1)

Cases cited (3)

  • Uganda Telecom Ltd v Rodrigo Chacon t/a Andes Alpes Trading (Miscellaneous Application No. 337 of 2008)
  • CMA CGM Uganda Ltd v M/S.H. Ssekatawa International Ltd (HCCA No. 27 of 2013)
  • Huadar Guangdong Chinese Co Ltd v Damco Logistics Uganda Limited (Civil Suit No. 4 and 5 of 2012)

Cases citing this judgment (2)

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.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Egbert De Smet v Nakassanga (Civil Suit No. 387 of 2011) [2017] UGCommC 135 (21 August 2017)
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.