Uganda Court of Appeal: MTN Uganda EZEE Money Wrongful Interference Tort Liability

• MTN Uganda Limited was found not liable under Uganda's Communications Act.
• EZEE Money Uganda Limited's payments business was not classified as a "communication service" under the Act.
• MTN Uganda Limited was, however, held liable for the common law tort of wrongful interference.
• The Uganda Court of Appeal reduced the damages awarded in the case.
• The judgment was delivered on October 22, 2026, in Civil Appeal No. 66 of 2016.

This case highlights the importance for legal practitioners advising fintech or telecom clients in Uganda to comprehensively assess business activities against both statutory definitions and common law torts to identify potential regulatory gaps and litigation risks.

The Uganda Court of Appeal, in a notable decision rendered on October 22, 2026, addressed the case of MTN Uganda Limited v EZEE Money Uganda Limited, identified as Civil Appeal No. 66 of 2016. This ruling clarified distinct avenues of liability for businesses operating within Uganda's evolving digital economy. The court determined that MTN Uganda Limited, the appellant in the matter, was not legally responsible under the provisions of the Communications Act.

This specific finding stemmed from the court's assessment that EZEE Money Uganda Limited's primary business, centered on payment services, did not fall within the statutory definition of a "communication service" as outlined in the Act. However, despite this exemption from statutory liability, the court concurrently found MTN Uganda Limited to be liable under common law principles for the tort of wrongful interference. As a result of the appeal, the court also ordered a reduction in the damages that had been initially awarded.

A key aspect of the judgment involved the interpretation of Uganda's Communications Act. The court meticulously examined whether EZEE Money Uganda Limited's operations, primarily focused on facilitating payments, could be classified as a "communication service" under the existing legislation. Its definitive finding that EZEE Money's business did not meet this statutory definition carries significant implications for the burgeoning fintech sector in Uganda.

This determination means that while certain activities might involve communication technologies, they are not automatically subject to the regulatory framework specifically designed for communication services. For companies engaged in fintech regulation in Uganda, this ruling provides a clearer boundary regarding the applicability of the Communications Act, suggesting that payment-centric businesses may operate outside its direct purview, at least concerning the definition of a "communication service."

Despite the statutory non-liability under the Communications Act, the Uganda Court of Appeal underscored the enduring relevance of common law principles by holding MTN Uganda Limited accountable for the tort of wrongful interference. This finding highlights that businesses in Uganda remain subject to broader legal obligations that exist independently of sector-specific statutes. The court's decision confirms that even if a company's activities do not trigger liability under a particular regulatory act, its conduct can still lead to legal repercussions under established tort law.

The imposition of wrongful interference tort liability in Uganda demonstrates that commercial entities must operate with due regard for the legitimate business interests of others. This aspect of the judgment serves as a critical reminder that common law torts provide a safety net for protecting commercial relationships and preventing undue disruption, even in areas where statutory definitions may not directly apply.

The dual nature of the verdict in MTN Uganda Limited v EZEE Money Uganda Limited, Civil Appeal No. 66 of 2016, offers vital insights for the legal and business communities in Uganda. It clearly delineates that an absence of liability under a specific statute, such as the Communications Act for a non-communication service, does not preclude liability under common law torts. This distinction is particularly pertinent for companies operating at the intersection of telecommunications and financial services, where regulatory frameworks are continually evolving.

This case highlights the importance for legal practitioners advising fintech or telecom clients in Uganda to comprehensively assess business activities against both statutory definitions and common law torts to identify potential regulatory gaps and litigation risks. The ruling underscores that while statutory compliance is crucial, adherence to common law principles remains equally vital for sound business practice, even as the court adjusted the quantum of damages in the MTN Uganda EZEE Money wrongful interference tort.

This judgment clarifies that payment businesses may not fall under the 'communication service' definition of Uganda's Communications Act, but can still face tortious liability for wrongful interference. Lawyers advising fintech or telecom clients in Uganda should assess business activities against both statutory definitions and common law torts to identify potential regulatory gaps and litigation risks.

Source: Original reporting via Uganda Court of Appeal judgment.