MTN Uganda: EZEE Money Appeal Liability Clarified, Damages Reduced

• The Ugandan Court of Appeal issued a ruling on October 22, 2026, in the case of MTN Uganda Limited v EZEE Money Uganda Limited ([2026] UGCA 298).
• MTN Uganda Limited was found not liable under the Uganda Communications Act, as EZEE Money's payments business was not deemed a "communication service."
• Despite this, MTN Uganda Limited was held liable for the tort of wrongful interference.
• The appellate court ultimately reduced the damages awarded to EZEE Money Uganda Limited.

The ruling in MTN Uganda Limited v EZEE Money Uganda Limited, UGCA 298 (2026), carries significant implications for entities operating in Uganda's telecommunications and financial technology sectors.

The Ugandan Court of Appeal, in a significant decision rendered on October 22, 2026, addressed the complex liability claims in the case of MTN Uganda Limited v EZEE Money Uganda Limited, cited as Civil Appeal No. 66 of 2016 or [2026] UGCA 298. The court delivered a mixed verdict concerning the appellant, MTN Uganda Limited, ultimately finding it not liable under specific communications legislation but responsible for a common law tort. This ruling has clarified aspects of regulatory oversight and corporate responsibility within Uganda's rapidly evolving digital economy.

Specifically, the appellate panel determined that MTN Uganda Limited did not incur liability under the provisions of the Uganda Communications Act. This finding was predicated on the nature of the respondent's operations. However, despite this exoneration on statutory grounds, the court simultaneously held MTN Uganda Limited accountable for the tort of wrongful interference, a distinct legal basis for liability. This dual outcome underscores the multifaceted legal challenges that can arise in commercial disputes involving technology and financial services.

As a direct consequence of the appeal, the financial compensation initially awarded to EZEE Money Uganda Limited was subjected to a reduction. This adjustment in damages reflects the appellate court's re-evaluation of the extent of harm or the appropriate measure of restitution, following its nuanced findings on liability. The decision provides a critical precedent for future cases involving similar intersections of telecommunications infrastructure and payment services.

A pivotal aspect of the court's judgment revolved around the interpretation of the Uganda Communications Act scope. The appellate court explicitly ruled that EZEE Money Uganda Limited's business, which primarily involves payment services, does not fall under the definition of a "communication service" as outlined in the Act. This distinction was fundamental to MTN Uganda Limited's successful appeal against liability under that specific statute, effectively limiting the Act's direct regulatory reach over non-communication-centric financial operations.

Conversely, MTN Uganda Limited's liability stemmed from the established tort of wrongful interference. This legal principle holds parties accountable for intentionally interfering with another's business or contractual relations without justification, causing economic harm. The court found sufficient evidence to conclude that MTN's actions had indeed constituted such an interference with EZEE Money's operations, leading to the affirmation of tortious liability despite the absence of statutory liability under the Communications Act.

The subsequent damages reduction appeal further refined the financial implications of the ruling. While the court upheld the finding of wrongful interference, it adjusted the quantum of damages, indicating a careful consideration of the evidence presented regarding the actual losses incurred by EZEE Money Uganda Limited. This reduction highlights the judiciary's role in ensuring that compensation aligns appropriately with the proven extent of harm in complex commercial litigation.

The ruling in MTN Uganda Limited v EZEE Money Uganda Limited, UGCA 298 (2026), carries significant implications for entities operating in Uganda's telecommunications and financial technology sectors. It provides crucial clarification that the Uganda Communications Act, while broad, does not automatically encompass all services that might utilize communication infrastructure, particularly when the core offering is a payment service. This delineation helps define regulatory boundaries and informs compliance strategies for companies like MTN Uganda Limited.

Moreover, the affirmation of liability for the wrongful interference tort Uganda serves as a potent reminder of the enduring relevance of general common law principles in commercial disputes. Even where specific sector-based legislation might not apply, businesses remain exposed to claims of tortious conduct if their actions unduly disrupt the operations of competitors or partners. This reinforces the need for robust legal counsel and risk assessment frameworks, especially for large service providers whose actions can have widespread effects.

Ultimately, this decision impacts how telecommunications and payment service providers assess their legal risks and navigate inter-company relationships. The clarity on the communication service definition Uganda, coupled with the reinforcement of wrongful interference liability, will likely influence contractual agreements, operational policies, and dispute resolution strategies across these interconnected industries, emphasizing careful conduct to avoid similar legal entanglements.

Lawyers advising telecommunications and payment service providers in Uganda should note this ruling clarifies the limited scope of the Communications Act regarding non-communication services and reinforces potential tortious liability for wrongful interference, impacting risk assessments and inter-company disputes.

Source: Reporting based on the appellate court's judgment.