International Tin Association Limited v Kerilee Investments Limited (MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 368 OF 2019)

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 High Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear a defamation suit where both parties were incorporated in the United Kingdom, the cause of action arose in the UK, and the parties' agreement contained an exclusive jurisdiction clause conferring jurisdiction on the courts of England and Wales. Although Section 14 of the Civil Procedure Act grants the plaintiff a choice of forum in suits for compensation for wrongs to persons, the court applied the principles established in Raytheon Aircraft Credit Corporation v Air Al-Faraj Limited and held that where parties have bound themselves by an exclusive jurisdiction clause, effect should ordinarily be given to that obligation unless strong reasons are shown for suing in a non-contractual forum. The UK courts were the appropriate forum given the domicile of the parties, the applicable law, the location of evidence and witnesses, and the absence of prejudice to either party.

Outcome

Civil suit dismissed for want of jurisdiction

Facts

The Respondent filed HCCS No. 201 of 2019 in the High Court Civil Division against the Applicant for defamation. Both parties are companies incorporated in the United Kingdom; the Respondent is also registered in Uganda as a foreign company. The Respondent obtained orders to serve summons out of jurisdiction on the Applicant in the UK. The Applicant filed a notice of intention to defend and the instant application challenging jurisdiction. The alleged defamation arose from emails sent by the Applicant to members of the International Tin Association regarding mineral shipments from Uganda. The emails were sent from an IP address in the UK. The parties had an agreement by Declaration of Accession dated 14 January 2014 containing an exclusive jurisdiction clause conferring jurisdiction on the courts of England and Wales under English law. The Respondent argued that jurisdiction was proper under Section 14 of the Civil Procedure Act because it carried on business in Uganda and the wrong related to its mineral operations in Uganda.

Issues

1. Whether the High Court of Uganda has jurisdiction to hear a defamation suit where both parties are incorporated and domiciled in the United Kingdom and the cause of action arose outside Uganda.
2. Whether an exclusive jurisdiction clause in a contract between the parties should be given effect notwithstanding Section 14 of the Civil Procedure Act.
3. Whether Uganda is the appropriate forum for the trial of the matter in the interests of the parties and the ends of justice.

Orders

• Application allowed.
• HCCS No. 0201 of 2019 dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
• Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (5)

• Civil Procedure Rules S.I 71-1 Order 9 Rule 3(1)(2)(3)
• Constitution of Uganda Article 139(1)
• Civil Procedure Act Cap 71 s.14
• Civil Procedure Act Cap 71 s.15
• Civil Procedure Act Cap 71 s.11

Cases cited (4)

• Prof. Egbert De Smet v Juliet Nakassanga (HCCS No. 387 of 2011)
• CMA CGM Uganda Ltd v M/S H. Ssekatawa International Limited (HCCS No. 27 of 2013)
• Donohue v Armico Inc. & Others [2001] 1 Lloyd's Rep 425
• Raytheon Aircraft Credit Corporation & Another v Air Al-Faraj Limited [2005] 2 EA 259

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.

• African Field Epidemiology Network (AFENET) v Kityaba (Civil Appeal No. 124 of 2017)

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