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 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 whose legal counsel was from Barenzi and Company Advocates.
The essence of the case is that Agro Value Limited is the proprietor of the international trademarks for “Rambo” 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 Kaale Kavisha, began duplicating Rambo Beer 9.5% 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 duplicate 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 from Barenzi and Company Advcoates. 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 held at Padea Border Post , 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, clerks and the URA Legal Officer Samuel Oseku. The entire chain was influenced by Barenzi and Company Advocates in a totally unprofessional manner crossing and manipulating barriers at every stage, right up to the judge,” the applicant alleges.
We express dissatisfaction under which the judge handled our client’s case. This matter was fixed by the judge after the lawyer representing Royal Crown International had directly approached you.
The applicant’s lawyer Rashid Babu states that the judge was approached on January 19, 2026 at 3:20pm and she fixed the case for on January 29. The lawyer said that no service was ordered on them and indeed they were not served. The lawyer petitioned by the judge
The lawyer said that they chanced upon the date when they were trying to get the date for the ruling on an interim order. This conduct shows total compromise.
Babu said they had filed an application for an order of temporary injunction and that there was an administrative interim order issued by registrar 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 lawyer tried to follow up on it and the answer given to one of his legal assistants was “It will be uploaded on Electronic Court Case Management Information System when it is ready”.
According to the lawyer, 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.
According to sources, URA officer Blaise Ikwero intends to release the goods despite a court order, stopping the same.
This prompted counsel Babu to put to the judge that she took over the files without appraising herself with the records of the case.
“You categorically state that there was no extension of the administrative interim order to January 16, 2026 yet the records of the court were available and you also refused to fix and hear the application for temporary injunction,” a visibly upset Babu stated.
The lawyer further tod the judge that he had an application for amendment of pleadings filed on record. He appreciated that the judge exercised judicial discretion by asking the opposite counsel with whom she fixed the main case, to agree to the amendment.
The lawyers stated that sadly, the judge asked the applicant to amend the pleadings by January 30, 2026, a day when they were with the judge, yet they had asked for more time to obtain a Police Report from INTERPOL as it was vital to the case.
“So, you wanted us to amend the pleadings and serve the other party within less than 24 hours. These timelines are unfair,” Counsel Babu argued.
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.
The lawyer complained that the time to amend, service of 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.
Lastly, counsel Babu was surprised that the judge directed them to settle the matter or else she is going to dismiss the case.
“Much as we already know the verdict in the case, we are going to file our amendment and serve it within seven days. If you do not want to consider the amendment, then that is your choice as a judge and we shall abide by the pre-determined ruling,” Babu roared.
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.
“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.
Trademark infringement is considered a serious offence and, in this case, it is a Ugandan Company and the culprits are unscrupulous Congolese nationals.
The duplicates seized at Padea Border Post are from Europe on Truck Number KDR 403Y/ZC 7328 Container Number MRKU 3512302 and KCM 908A/ZF 7144, Container Number MRKU 3492510.
The company states that Barenzi and Company Advocates during this case acted to violate every possible legal law, very unpatriotic and destroying the fabric and foundation of our legal system.
