(2018) 2 African Human Rights Yearbook 123 Further, in the 2010 High Court case of Regal Pharmaceuticals,229 the petitioner sought to recover monies from the respondent arising from goods allegedly supplied to the latter between 2007 and 2009. In this case, the references to COMESA were quite tangential. Part of the plaintiff’s evidence consisted of annexures, which included a COMESA Certificate of Origin and a list of goods containing, among others, a COMESA number. Aside from these, there were no further references to, nor reliance upon, COMESA law by the respective counsel and the Judge. More extensive reference to COMESA law was made in the 2011 High Court case of Pearl Impex (U) Ltd and 2 Others v Attorney General and Kampala City Authority.230 The plaintiffs, by way of originating summons, sought the assistance of the High Court with regard to the proper understanding of the meaning of a ‘foreign investor’ under Ugandan law, as well as regulatory requirements for the conduct of trade by such persons. In adjudicating the matter, Judge Madrama thought that the central questions before the court could not be adjudicated upon without reviewing a range of other bodies of law, including COMESA law, germane to the issue of trade and investment.231 In terms of the COMESA Treaty, one of its major objectives, under article 3 thereof, was the establishment of a common market, to spur growth and development, including through the creation of an environment conducive to transboundary investment.232 As such the Investment Code Act of Uganda had to be read in light of the objectives of the COMESA Treaty.233 The Uganda Investment Authority was also duty bound to ensure that Uganda’s legal and policy framework was consistent with the process of regional integration and common markets as conceptualised, among others, under the COMESA Treaty.234 Later, in the 2012 High Court case of Akiphar Pharmaceuticals Ltd v The Commissioner Customs Uganda Revenue Authority,235 the plaintiff alleged that the defendant had unlawfully auctioned its sugar, since the sugar should have been duty-free, having been imported from Swaziland (a COMESA member state). However, apart from this passing reference, based on the plaintiff’s pleadings, no further reference to COMESA or COMESA law appears to have been made by the parties, and no further reference or reliance on this law was reflected in the judgment, which turned very much on the provisions of the EACCMA.236 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 n 171. High Court Civil Suit 3 of 2011 (decision of Judge Christopher Madrama). At 16. As above. At 16-17. At 20-21. High Court Civil Suit 366 of 2012 (before Judge Christopher Madrama Izama). For a summary of Ugandan decisions referring to the EACCMA, see n 172.