Wissam v Bharti Airtel Limited (Civil Suit No. 1028 of 2017)

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 lacks jurisdiction to hear the matter. Where parties have bound themselves by a jurisdiction clause, effect should ordinarily be given to that obligation unless the party suing in the non-contractual forum shows strong reasons for doing so. The plaintiff failed to demonstrate that Uganda was a more convenient forum or that witnesses were resident in Uganda. The engagement letter provided for English law and the non-exclusive jurisdiction of English courts, and the plaintiff previously filed the same claim in the Netherlands, demonstrating affordability of foreign litigation. Suit dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Suit dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; plaintiff advised to file in English courts

Facts

On 14 October 2009, the plaintiff and defendant entered an engagement letter whereby the plaintiff would act as exclusive advisor to the defendant in connection with the acquisition of Warid Group's Telecom Operations in Uganda and Congo Brazzaville. The plaintiff was to receive a success fee of 2% of the enterprise value of the target, payable in two tranches. The engagement letter contained a clause providing that it would be governed by English law and subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of English courts. The plaintiff claimed the defendant acquired the target but refused to pay the commission of USD 3,729,423.98 plus interest. The plaintiff filed suit in Uganda on 22 December 2017. The plaintiff had previously filed a similar suit in the Netherlands which was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The defendant raised a preliminary objection challenging the court's jurisdiction.

Issues

1. Whether the High Court of Uganda has jurisdiction to hear the matter given the jurisdiction clause in the engagement letter providing for non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales.
2. Whether the plaintiff demonstrated sufficient reasons to sue in Uganda contrary to the contractual forum.
3. Whether the suit was filed outside the limitation period.

Orders

• Suit dismissed.
• Plaintiff advised to file the suit in an English court where it would be administered in accordance with the laws of England and Wales as agreed by the parties in the Engagement Letter.
• Costs to be borne by the Plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Cases cited (2)

• Raytheon Aircraft Credit Corporation and Another v Air Al-Faraj Limited (Court of Appeal of Kenya, 2005)
• Donohue vs Armo INC [2002] 4 LRC 478

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.

• Rev. Bikangiso Ezrah and Dinah Bikangiso v DFCU Bank Limited (High Court Misc. Application 0005 of 2023)
• Maersk Agency Uganda Limited v Munywevu & Another (Miscellaneous Application 1177 of 2021)

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