The respondent contracted with CMA CMG-Société Anonyme, France, to transport goods from Tokyo, Japan, to Kampala, Uganda, at a cost of USD 7,987.60. The bill of lading was executed by CMA CMG Japan KK, agents of CMA CMG SA. The agreed cost was payable to the appellant upon delivery of the goods from Mombasa, Kenya, to Kampala, Uganda. During the transport of the goods, extra costs were incurred which gave rise to a dispute as to the amount payable by the respondent. The appellant instructed Damco Logistics Ltd not to release the container to the respondent until the amount invoiced by the appellant was paid.​

In the Magistrate's Court the respondent's claim and appellant's counter-claim were dismissed on the basis that the contract between the parties was made in Japan and the Ugandan courts therefore had no territorial jurisdiction to determine the matter. The appellant appealed to the High Court.

Held: Appeal on jurisdiction upheld.

The bill of lading provides that:

Actions against the carrier under the contract of carriage evidenced by this Bill of Lading shall be brought before 'Tribunal de Commerce de Marseille' and no other court shall have jurisdiction with regard to any such action. Actions against the Merchant under the contract of carriage evidenced by this Bill of Lading may be brought before the 'Tribunal de Commerce de Marseille' or, in carriers’ discretion, in another court of competent jurisdiction.

The bill of lading also provides that French law is applicable to the terms and conditions of the bill of lading, and in interpreting the terms and conditions thereof, 'except as specifically provided elsewhere therein'.

To determine whether courts in Uganda can exercise jurisdiction over the parties, one has to look at the law governing carriage of goods by sea. There is no specific law in Uganda governing the carriage of goods by sea, although Uganda is a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Carriage of Goods by Sea 1978 (The Hamburg Rules).

In the absence of specific legislation, ss 14(2)(b) and 14(3) of the Judicature Act empower courts to apply common law principles and doctrines of equity as defined under s 14(5) of that Act. As laid down in the case of John Russell & Co Ltd v Cayzer, Irvine & Co Ltd [1916] 2 AC 298, 302 'the common law general rule is that exercise of jurisdiction depends on service of originating court process, as service can only be effected on those actually present in the jurisdiction, or those who submitted voluntarily or by contract to the jurisdiction'.

In the present case the parties filed both their claim and counter-claim in the Ugandan courts, although they had contracted in Japan, and agreed that disputes against the carrier would be filed in the French Court, while disputes against the merchant could be brought in the French court or in any other court of competent jurisdiction. In the circumstances, the parties voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the Ugandan courts, despite the fact that they had agreed to give the French Court exclusive jurisdiction to rule on a claim between the merchant and the carrier.

The fact that the parties decided to apply French law is immaterial to the jurisdiction issue. Jurisdiction is a matter of the law here in light of both the contract and contract law in Uganda. Ugandan courts have the jurisdiction to try the matter here and would then be obliged to apply French law.

The parties have no obligation to file the suit in Japan and the trial Magistrate erred to hold that the suit ought to have been filed in Japan.​