In spite of the passion with which the Claimant laboured to convince us otherwise, we find ourselves in a position of absolute inability to resist the Respondents’ submission that currently there are judicial proceedings going on in courts in Uganda of which the Claimant is aware and that at the moment they are at an advanced stage of litigation; and that it would be absurd to have parallel proceedings in two different courts, namely, one before us and another in the courts in Uganda. Indeed, a clash of decisions would not only cause confusion between this Court and the courts in Uganda, it would also result in an execution stalemate. We find it improper for the Claimant to have abandoned litigating before the courts in Uganda and instead sought sanctuary in this Court.
In our considered view, this amounts to forum shopping and we take this early opportunity to say loudly and clearly that this Court finds it unprofessional and strongly disapproves of it.
In the result and for the foregoing reasons, we find and hold that the Reference is improperly before this Court as against the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents. Consequently, Issue No. 1 is answered in the negative.
In view of the position we have taken in disposing of this ground, we do not find it necessary to go into the other grounds raised by the parties or tackle the remaining objections, as this finding alone sufficiently and conclusively dispose of this Reference.
Consequently, the Reference is struck out with costs.
Alcon International-2010-6-judgment-2011 (full text in English)