By Silvia Nyambura
In July 2013, the constitutional court of Uganda ruled that all criminal proceedings that were being conducted at the High Court Anti Corruption Division in Kololo be stayed until further notice. This arose from the contention that the exercising of judicial duties in the anti-corruption division by the chief magistrate and grade 1 magistrates is unconstitutional, unlawful and derogates accused persons’ rights to a fair hearing.
The ruling argued that as per article 138 of the constitution of Uganda, the high court consists of the principal judge and judges of the high court and therefore designation of magistrates to the court distorts its constitutional structure. Following this decision, over 200 cases are currently pending, awaiting hearing and final determination before the Anti Corruption Division (ACD) ,some of the cases involve corporate entities.
The closure of the ACD therefore poses a challenge for resolution of criminal disputes between feuding parties including corporates. Nonetheless, the commercial division of the high court has handled some big feuds in 2013 some ruled while others are still going through the court process and in this issue, The CEO Magazine brings you a wrap up of some of the biggest bones of contention from the courts.
Hon. Abdul Katuntu versus MTN, UCC, BOU and others
In March 2013, Bugweri County Member of Parliament Abdul Katuntu dragged MTN Uganda and other telecom companies to court claiming under regulation of electronic money transfer services compared to that of financial institutions like banks and forex bureaus. Further, he countersued Bank of Uganda as the country’s financial Regulator and the Uganda Communications
Commission (UCC) for allowing the companies to operate outside the licenses issued for mobile money. In his suit Katuntu would
like the court to order an audit of all the money received by telecom companies in a bid to ensure it is all generated under the stipulated laws. The case is currently still ongoing.
Uganda Manufacturers Association (UMA) versus Electricity Regulatory Authority (ERA)
UMA took to the corridors of justice when ERA announced a revision of power tariffs and introduction of Automatic Tariff Adjustments (ATA) in December 2012 which would see an increase of up to 70 percent in power tariffs for the manufacturing sector. The association argued that industries are heavily dependent on energy and therefore ATA’s would increase the cost of doing business. The matter was resolved in March 2013 in an out of court settlement that saw ERA increase tariffs by only 10 percent and an agreement was reached that increase of tariffs should not exceed the 10 percent mark.
BoU, Stanbic Bank, Standard Chartered versus Hassan Basajjabalaba, Haba Group and 8 others
In December 2012, Financial Regulator Bank of Uganda (BoU) sued Kampala businessman Hassan Basajjabalaba claiming over US$ 36 million that the regulator paid on the businessman’s behalf to Stanbic and Standard Chartered banks to clear debts owed to the said banks. The loan which was supposed to be paid back by 2010 has been accumulating at an 8.5 percent interest over the years from the original total debt of over US$21 million. On his part, Basajjabalaba maintains that he paid up BoU’s loan from the Ushs 142 billion given to him by government as compensation for losing out on tenders for maintenance of Shauri Yako, Owino and Nakasero markets to vendors. The case remains pending in court to this day.
Coca Cola Company Limited versus Hariss International Limited
Coca Cola went to court over the use of Hariss International’s Riham Cola 500 ml container and claiming that the beverage was an imitation that could easily be passed off as the more popular Coca Cola brand. The company called for a permanent injunction restraining Hariss International from infringing the rights of Coca Cola in its container, label and trademark. In its defense Hariss International claimed that no one can have a monopoly of bottling a dark liquid in a clear bottle and that the names of the beverages were clearly different. The dispute was settled amicably on the 05th of November 2013 in a confidential settlement and both parties were asked to pay for their own legal costs.
Testimony Motors Limited versus Commissioner of Customs Uganda Revenue Authority (URA)
This case, settled in August was a disagreement over the tax valuation system adapted by URA for used motor vehicles. According to Testimony Motors a used car importer in Uganda, there was a violation of the East African Community Customs Management Act when URA neglected to use the tax valuation system and instead used an alternative method for a vehicle imported by the company which escalated taxes on the vehicle to the tune of Ushs 19 million instead of Ushs 8 million. The car importer was awarded Ushs 20 million in aggravated general damages for breach of statutory duty owed to importers of used vehicles by URA. The judge further ruled that URA shall reassess the vehicle for customs duty which should it be overpaid, the balance over and above the customs duty paid by Testimony Motors shall be refunded.
Balton Uganda Limited versus Bolton International Limited
At the end of August Agricultural inputs firm Balton Uganda Limited and its parent company Balton CP Limited took to the courts claiming that Bolton International Limited has through its products, new look, advertisement campaign, logo, colors, symbols and catch phrase managed to convince clients that the two companies are the same which has led to loss of business for the former. Balton wants the court to compel Bolton to deliver all offensive materials and documents in their possession for destruction. The matter is still ongoing at the commercial division of the High Court.