Wakilii

Icco Cooperation v Trivision Uganda Ltd (Miscellaneous Application None of 2018)

High Court · [2018] UGCOMMC 14 · 2018 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to dismiss suit for lack of jurisdiction arising from Civil Suit No. 945 of 2016
Decision
Application dismissed; court retained jurisdiction to hear the underlying dispute in Civil Suit No. 945 of 2016

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 held it has jurisdiction to hear the dispute despite an exclusive jurisdiction clause selecting Dutch courts. The court found that the contract was executed in Uganda, all parties and witnesses reside in Uganda, performance occurred in Uganda, and requiring litigation in the Netherlands would impose substantial costs denying the respondent access to justice. The application seeking court's self-declination of jurisdiction in favour of the contractual forum was dismissed. The choice of foreign forum was not made in bad faith but was outweighed by considerations of convenience, cost, and constitutional access to justice.

Outcome

Application dismissed; court retained jurisdiction to hear the underlying dispute in Civil Suit No. 945 of 2016

Facts

The applicant ICCO Cooperation Uganda entered into a contract with the respondent Trivision Uganda Limited for production of a television series called 'Yat Madit' following receipt of a European Union grant. The contract contained an exclusive jurisdiction clause (Clause 31) providing that disputes would be submitted to the District Court of Utrecht, Netherlands, under Dutch law. The respondent and another party filed Civil Suit No. 945 of 2016 in the High Court Commercial Division alleging breach of contract arising from non-payment for services, failure to conduct capacity building, and improper termination. The applicant filed this application seeking dismissal of the suit on grounds that the court lacked jurisdiction due to the contractual forum selection clause. The entire production work was performed in Uganda, all parties reside in Uganda, and the contract was executed in Uganda. The applicant is an international organisation operating in multiple jurisdictions.

Issues

  1. Whether the High Court of Uganda has jurisdiction to hear the dispute notwithstanding an exclusive jurisdiction clause in the contract providing for the District Court of Utrecht in the Netherlands.
  2. Whether the party resisting the contractual forum provided strong reasons for suing in Uganda contrary to the exclusive jurisdiction clause.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs to abide the results of the main suit Civil Suit No. 945 of 2016.

Rules and key headnotes

Jurisdiction — Exclusive Jurisdiction Clauses — Discretion to Decline Enforcement
Where parties have bound themselves by an exclusive jurisdiction clause, effect should ordinarily be given to that obligation unless the party suing in the non-contractual forum discharges the burden of showing strong reasons for suing in that forum.
Choice of Law and Forum — Factors for Upholding Party Autonomy
A contractual choice of foreign law and forum should be respected where the choice is made bonafide and there is no evidence of an intention to evade mandatory law, fraud, duress, undue influence, or other mala fides.
Jurisdiction — Factors Supporting Retention of Jurisdiction Despite Forum Selection Clause
In resisting enforcement of an exclusive foreign jurisdiction clause, relevant factors include the location where the contract was executed and performed, the residence of parties and witnesses, the cost and convenience of litigating abroad, the local court's expertise in the relevant law, and whether declining jurisdiction would effectively deny the party access to justice.
Access to Justice — Jurisdiction Cannot Be Ousted by Private Agreement Where It Would Deny Constitutional Rights
The Constitution of the Republic of Uganda vests jurisdiction in the High Court which cannot be ousted by a contractual clause between parties where enforcement of the clause would amount to denial of access to justice.
Interlocutory Applications — Joinder — Right to Be Heard
Where an application for dismissal on jurisdictional grounds is directed only at one plaintiff in a suit involving multiple plaintiffs with related claims, allowing the application would condemn the unaddressed plaintiff unheard, constituting a serious breach of the right to be heard.

Legislation cited (1)

Cases cited (2)

  • Raytheon Aircraft Credit Corporation and Another v Air Al-Faraj Limited [2005] 2 EA 259
  • Donohue v Armo Inc [2002] 4 LRC 478

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Icco Cooperation v Trivision Uganda Ltd (Miscellaneous Application None of 2018) [2018] UGCommC 14 (23 May 2018)
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.