124 Kabumba/Application of African Union (human rights) law in Uganda In another 2012 matter, the High Court case of Isaac Katongole v Excel Insurance Company Ltd,237 the plaintiff contended that the defendant had breached the terms of a third party insurance contract entered into under the COMESA Yellow Card Protocol. Relying on the terms of the Protocol on Transport and Communications (Annexure VII to the PTA Treaty), the defendant raised a preliminary objection, contending that the Ugandan court lacked jurisdiction, as the accident in question had occurred in Rwanda. However, having regard to the Protocol, as well as to the plaintiff’s pleadings, the High Court Judge felt that the Court retained jurisdiction, in so far as the plaintiff’s claim related to loss arising from the defendant’s failure to supply accurate documentation, which would have enabled the plaintiff to obtain compensation from the Rwandan authorities. More recently, in the 2016 High Court case of Coil Ltd v Transtrade Services Ltd,238 the plaintiff sought an order allowing it to attach the defendant’s property in Uganda or, in the alternative, an order for security for costs, on account of the defendant being a Kenyan-based company. The reference to COMESA in this case was only a tangential one, and was a narration of the averments in one of the affidavits for the plaintiff – to the effect that defendant was likely to remove its assets from Uganda and that, in such a circumstance, the defendant’s ‘COMESA insurance’ was unlikely to satisfy any judgment rendered in favour of the plaintiff.239 Aside from this passing reference, the Judge’s determination of the matter did not turn on, or make any further reference to, COMESA law. Finally, in the 2016 High Court case of Clet Wandui Masiga v Association for Strengthening Agriculture in Eastern and Central Africa,240 the plaintiff, a former employee of the defendant, alleged that the defendant was infringing his copyright in respect to a livestock productivity manual and programme the defendant was implementing in various areas of Uganda. The defendant raised a preliminary objection to the suit, on the ground that it enjoyed diplomatic immunity from civil process in Uganda. In determining the validity of the objection, the Judge referred to the COMESA Court decision in the case of Eastern and Southern African Trade and Development Bank (PTA bank) v Ogang241 as authority for the propositions that the privileges and immunities of an institution had to be determined from a perusal of its constituent treaty or statute,242 and that, in any case, no such treaty or statute would conceivably provide for the ‘existence of a rogue organ or institution flouting with impunity all the rules of the organization from which it derive[d] birth’.243 In the end, the Judge 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 High Court Civil Suit 176 of 2012 (before Judge Christopher Madrama Izama). High Court Misc Appn 14 of 2016, Arising from Civil Suit No.6 of 2016 (before Judge Stephen Mubiru). At 5. High Court Civil Suit 266, 267 and 268 of 2016 (before Judge Christopher Madrama Izama). [2001] 1 EA 46. At 12. At 12 & 14.