In Commercial Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 127 of 2025, concerning the alleged infringement of a Ugandan company’s trademark, Agro Value Limited, by a Congolese national and a brief case company in United Arab Emirates, proceedings became tense when Uganda Revenue Authority Legal Manager Blaise Ikwero and Justice Patricia Kahigi Asiimwe adopted what appeared to be an unusually aggressive approach in favour of the respondent, Royal Crown International Limited of the United Arab Emirates.
The gist of the case is that Agro Value Limited is the proprietor of the international trademarks for “Rambo 9.5%” beer in Uganda, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), South Sudan, the European Union, and the United States of America, and has held these rights for over ten years. However, only seven months ago, certain individuals, principally Kaaba Kavisha, began actions that gave rise to the present dispute.
With the assistance of the Uganda Revenue Authority (URA) and the Joint Port Control Unit (JPCU), eight containers of beer were seized six allegedly originating from Europe and two from China. The applicant states that the owners of six of these containers later entered into a negotiated settlement, under which the goods were to remain in a bonded warehouse subject to agreed conditions.
Regarding the remaining two containers, the applicant states that the alleged owner did not personally appear and instead instructed Ugandan counsel to represent it. The matter was reported to several authorities, including Namanve Police Post, the State Attorney in Mukono, Regional Police offices and the Criminal Investigations Department. The applicant further states that a report was forwarded to INTERPOL, citing the international nature of the matter involving Lithuania, Poland, the UAE, and China, under references KMP/E GEF 206/2025 and INT/D/005/VIL VIII/33.
An interim order was initially issued in respect of the two containers, though the hearing was postponed due to the election period. After the expiry of the first order, the interim order was extended to 16th January, 2026.
The applicant has raised concerns about the conduct of various officers and the handling of the matter, alleging undue influence and procedural irregularities in the process leading up to and during the court proceedings. These concerns, the applicant states, extend to actions taken within the court registry and in relation to the enforcement of the interim order.
“It was shocking to see the behaviour of the Registrar at the Commercial Court who happens to be a former employee of URA and the URA Legal Officer Samuel Oseku. The entire chain was influenced by Royal Crown Advocates of Barenzi & Co. Advocates in a totally unprofessional manner crossing and manipulating barriers at every stage, right up to the judge,” the applicant alleges.
The applicant expressed dissatisfaction under which the judge handled its case. The case was fixed by the judge after the lawyer representing Royal Crown International had approached her on 19th January, 2026.
The judge was approached on January 19, 2026 at 3:20pm and she fixed the case for on January 29, 2026 within 10 days only. The applicant said that no service was ordered on them and indeed they were not served but they got to know of the date of hearing when they were pursuing the Assistant registrar Christa Namutebi to give them their ruling on the interim order.
The applicant said that they had filed an application for an order of temporary injunction and that there was an administrative interim order issued by Christa Namutebi and there was a pending ruling which had been fixed for January 16, 2026.
Regarding these, Namutebi did not did not deliver a ruling on January 16, much as the applicant tried to follow up on it but all they got was “the ruling will be uploaded on Electronic Court Case Management Information System when it is ready”.
According to information obtained, the issue was brought to the attention of Justice Patricia Kahigi Asiimwe, but she said there was no interim order in existence and that she could not even trace the files for two miscellaneous applications filed in 2025 (No. 2882 of 2025 and No. 2827 of 2025) on the system. The judge declined to fix the application for temporary injunction on that basis.
The judge was also informed by the applicant’s lawyers that there was an application for amendment of pleadings filed on record. The judge exercised judicial discretion by asking the opposite counsel with whom she fixed the main case, to agree to the amendment.
The applicant stated that sadly, the judge asked the applicant to amend the pleadings by January 30, 2026 and to serve the same on 30th January, 2026 within a period of less than 24 hours from the day they appeared in court, yet they had asked for more time to obtain a Police report from INTERPOL as it was vital to the case.
Following that, the applicant said that the judge gave directions that the respondents file their replies by Feburary 4, 2026 and that the judge did not give them a chance of rejoinder but fixed the case for Feburary 10, 2026 for hearing.
The applicant’s complaint is that the time to amend and file the pleading and then service of the amendments (which was less than 24 hours), receiving replies and hearing the case in a space of 10 days is what the judge ordered with no chance of the applicant to file a rejoinder.
THE CASE
According to court documents, Agro Value Limited is the registered owner of trademark Rambo 9.5% beer and Rambo Nior 16%.
Agro Value Limited has since discovered that Royal Crown International is duplicating its Rambo beer trade mark and supplying counterfeited products in the market.
Agro Value Limited states that on December 19, 2025, URA disclosed to him that two containers (MRSU74000005 and TRHU8307354) containing the duplicate beer with the applicant’s infringed trademark and it has not disclosed the last container number.
The company complained to URA and other security agencies to have the counterfeit products to be seized and the culprits prosecuted but no action has been taken. The company has since learnt that Sanco Ibeiz Limited has shipped in a container No.TCLU8779180 and three other containers containing duplicate Rambo beer and it is at Multiple ICD.
“It is dangerous for the duplicate products being supplied to the unsuspecting public which may cause harm and a fall back is labelled on the company,” Agro Value Limited states. The company has since contacted URA, which advised it to obtain an order of “seizure and destroy” of duplicate products for the court, a reason why it filed a substantive application for the same in the Commercial Court.
The company states that it is in the interest of justice and equity for the court to issue an interim order to protect its trade mark and duplication of products as a matter of urgency.
The court proceedings are still continuing and the outcome is unknown. But what is known for sure is that there is a syndicate of Congolese nationals working with Royal Crown International in United Arab Emirates and a Chinese company to duplicate Rambo 9.5% beer and distribute the beer in Uganda, Congo Rwanda and other countries.
