Omara® 🇺🇬

WHEN COURT AND COUNSEL CLASH: “AM I THE REGISTRAR?” Today at the Commercial Division, there was quite an exchange between counsel and the judge. Counsel had filed an application for stay of execution to restrain opposing counsel from implementing the decisions of the Registrar of Trademarks. Upon examining the application, the judge realised that the Notice of Motion had not been signed by the Registrar. The judge then asked counsel about the requirements for obtaining a stay of execution. Judge: There must be a pending appeal. Counsel: My Lord, there is one. Judge: But at the moment, there is none, because your Notice of Motion is not signed, and there is no order granting leave to appeal attached. I must admit, I liked counsel's response. Counsel: My Lord, you are mistaken. This is an appeal as of right. I do not require leave to appeal. The judge concedes Judge: Okay. But your Notice of Motion has not been endorsed by the Registrar. That does not constitute the filing of a sufficient appeal to satisfy the requirements for a stay of execution. Counsel: My Lord, if this were the manual filing system, the document would have been signed. Judge: Yesterday, I dismissed an application on that very ground. I am therefore warning you. Counsel: The good thing, My Lord, is that the matter is before you. It was assigned to you. We even wrote letters requesting that the documents be endorsed. Judge: It seems you are not understanding. Counsel: No, My Lord. That is not my mistake. The Court ought to have endorsed the document. Judge: Am I the Registrar? Counsel: But, My Lord, the matter is before— Judge: So, you are arrogant! Counsel: My Lord, we did what was required of us, but the Court did not do what it was supposed to do. The application was subsequently allocated a hearing date. Had this been the manual filing system, the document would have been endorsed and signed by the registrar. At that point, the judge stood up and marched out of the courtroom. Sometimes, the courtroom is not just about the law; it is also about procedure, personalities, and the delicate art of managing the bench. Perhaps counsel should have sought a validation or an extension given the circumstances. BOTTOM LINE: CALMNESS IS CRUCIAL ON BOTH ENDS.

YOUR LOAN HAS BEEN REJECTED. THE ALGORITHM KNOWS WHY. YOU DON'T! SMART MONEY, THIN LAW? Imagine a Ugandan trader who urgently needs Shs200,000 to restock her business. She opens a mobile lending application, applies for a loan and, within seconds, an algorithm decides whether she deserves the money. No loan officer interviews her. No human being examines her circumstances. The machine makes the decision. But here is the interesting part: if the algorithm rejects her application, who explains why? And more importantly, what law holds that algorithm accountable? This is the regulatory dilemma explored in my paper, Smart Money, Thin Law? Artificial Intelligence, Digital Money and the Regulatory Imperative in Uganda: A Comparative Appraisal with Kenya and Nigeria. Uganda's digital financial ecosystem has grown tremendously. In the year ending December 2025, Ugandans borrowed approximately Shs 2.75 trillion through mobile money platforms. Artificial intelligence is increasingly determining who accesses credit, identifying suspicious transactions, detecting fraud, processing complaints and assisting financial supervision. There is no denying its usefulness. AI is widening access to financial services, particularly for people who lack conventional credit histories, collateral or access to traditional banking. It can detect fraudulent transactions at a scale no human team could reasonably manage. It can also make financial services more accessible through local languages. But technological convenience must not come at the expense of legal accountability. Here is where laws deserve serious scrutiny. The National Payment Systems Act 2020 regulates payment systems, electronic money issuers and the protection of customer funds. The Data Protection and Privacy Act , particularly section 27, gives a data subject the right to request reconsideration of a decision significantly affecting them where that decision is based solely on automated processing. The 2024 UMRA Digital Lending Guidelines have also addressed abusive debt collection practices, including harassment and the unauthorised use of borrowers' contact lists. These are commendable developments. However, they leave a fundamental question unanswered: who regulates the algorithm making the financial decision? What happens when an AI credit-scoring model unfairly excludes a borrower? What happens when an algorithm produces a discriminatory outcome? Who bears the loss when an autonomous system freezes an innocent person's account or executes a transaction erroneously? the Data Protection and Privacy Act is a useful safeguard, but it is not enough. It does not expressly provide a comprehensive right to an explanation of the algorithmic decision, and its protection is limited to decisions based solely on automated processing. The danger is that a lender could introduce nominal human involvement while the algorithm continues to exercise the real decision-making power. The machine makes the decision, the customer suffers the consequences, but accountability becomes everyone's responsibility and nobody's! My point is straightforward: Uganda regulates the money, but largely leaves the machine unregulated. The solution is not to prohibit AI in financial services. That would undermine the very financial inclusion and efficiency that technology promises. Rather, the Bank of Uganda and UMRA should introduce joint, sector-specific guidelines requiring financial institutions to: Explain automated decisions: A borrower whose loan is rejected or whose credit limit is reduced should receive understandable reasons and information on how to obtain human review. Test algorithms for fairness: Financial institutions should periodically examine their AI models for discriminatory outcomes across gender, age and geographical location. Establish human accountability: There must be identifiable officers responsible for high-risk AI systems, with the authority to intervene and override decisions. Allocate liability fairly: Losses arising from algorithmic or system errors should ordinarily fall on the service provider, unless the customer is responsible through fraud or gross negligence. Strengthen regulatory coordination: The Bank of Uganda, UMRA, the Personal Data Protection Office and other relevant regulators must establish a coordinated framework for supervising AI in digital finance. Make the regulatory sandbox work: Uganda should actively use its existing regulatory sandbox to test AI-driven financial products before they are deployed on a mass scale. Ultimately, the law must evolve alongside the technology it seeks to regulate. We cannot celebrate artificial intelligence when it approves a loan and suddenly become silent when it unfairly rejects one. The future of digital finance should not simply be about faster transactions, instant loans and intelligent algorithms. It must also be about transparency, fairness, consumer protection and accountability. Smart money requires equally smart law. Otherwise, we risk building a sophisticated financial system on a dangerously thin legal foundation. #ArtificialIntelligenceandDigitalFinance #FinTech #FinancialRegulation