On its vehicles, billboards, and advertisements, African Queen Limited, a distribution company, refers to itself as the No. 1 Distributor of goods in Uganda.
It turns out that not everyone is happy about this claim. Adlegal International, a consumer protection body, says this amounts to deceptive advertising.
So early this year it decided to register a complaint with the Uganda Registration Services Bureau (URSB), saying the phrase amounted to a claim that African Queen was the leading distributor in its sector, which was erroneous.
Adlegal contended that the phrase “No.1” conveyed an impression of superiority and implied that the company was the leading or best distributor within its industry.
According to Adlegal, this could mislead members of the public into believing that African Queen had been officially recognised, verified, or endorsed as the top distributor in the market.
Aziz Kitaka, the executive director of Adlegal, told the panel that company names should be accurate identifiers and not marketing slogans.
“The addition of the phrase ‘No.1’ unfairly elevated African Queen’s market perception without any factual verification,” Kitaka argued.
The organisation further claimed that allowing such wording in company names would encourage other businesses to make similar unverified claims.
It argued that African Queen was using the name extensively on vehicles, billboards, flyers, and other promotional materials.
Adlegal warned that manufacturers looking for distributors could wrongly assume that the ranking had been verified by regulators or competent authorities.
For those reasons, Adlegal asked URSB to declare the phrase improper and order African Queen to remove “No.1” from its name.
African Queen, represented by Elly Mawampa from its legal department, argued that the complaint had no legal foundation and did not meet the legal requirements needed for intervention by the registrar.
African Queen maintained that “No.1” is a common expression used in business and marketing across many industries.
The company argued that the phrase did not give it any official status and did not imply endorsement by a government regulator.
“The allegations of consumer deception were speculative, unsubstantiated, and unsupported by evidence,” Mawampa submitted.
African Queen also pointed out that its name had been examined and approved by URSB when it was incorporated in 2015.
The company argued that this approval demonstrated that the name had passed the legal test at the time of registration and was not considered misleading or undesirable.
The company further argued that it had operated under the same name continuously for more than a decade.
It said Adlegal had not explained why it waited until 2026 to challenge a name that had existed since 2015.
The company, therefore, asked for the application to be dismissed with costs.
Court faults NMS for firing their Chief Pharmacist after unfairly altering his job title
The matter was argued before Daniel Nasasira, the Assistant Registrar at URSB. Nasasira focused on whether Adlegal had used the correct legal procedure and whether it had the legal standing to bring the case.
Nasasira found that Adlegal had approached URSB using the wrong process.
He ruled that the complaint did not fall within the registrar’s quasi-judicial powers because it was not a dispute involving company members and did not concern rectification of the company’s register.
Nasasira added that the application was essentially a request for administrative action rather than a matter requiring formal adjudication.
“The proper procedural avenue would have been an administrative application addressed to the registrar in the exercise of administrative oversight functions, rather than the initiation of quasi-judicial proceedings as was done,” Nasasira said.
While acknowledging that Adlegal’s objectives include promoting fair competition and preventing deceptive advertising, Nasasira said the organisation had failed to show that it had suffered any direct harm.
He noted that Adlegal had not presented evidence showing that any business, consumer, or market participant had actually been affected by African Queen’s use of the phrase “No.1”.
“No material has been adduced to show that the Applicant itself has suffered any direct or particularised prejudice,” he ruled.
He added that the complaint remained “general in nature” and was therefore insufficient to establish the required legal standing.
In his final decision, Nasasira said Adlegal lacked the requisite locus standi to invoke the quasi-judicial mandate of the Registrar of Companies and that the matter was instituted before an improper forum.
He dismissed the application in its entirety.
The decision means African Queen No.1 Distributor-SMC Limited will continue using its registered company name unchanged.
