Wakilii

Uganda Taxi Operators & Drivers Association v Uganda Revenue Authority (Miscellaneous Application 152 of 2017)

Court of Appeal · [2018] UGCA 249 · 2018 Application Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application under the slip rule to correct part of a Court of Appeal judgment relating to orders for payment of interest
Decision
Application to correct the judgment dismissed with costs to the respondent

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment
Cited — treatment unverified cited in 3 (treatment unverified) Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions — always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The Court of Appeal dismissed an application under the slip rule (Rule 36) seeking to alter the interest orders in an earlier judgment. The Court held that the interest awarded was a judicial discretionary award, not an error from an accidental slip or omission. Section 44(1) of the VAT Act did not apply because the litigation originated in the High Court's original jurisdiction, not via the Tax Appeals Tribunal. The applicant, having failed to cross-appeal and having supported the entire judgment before the Supreme Court (which confirmed it), could not now reopen confirmed orders. The application was an attempt to render litigation endless and was dismissed with costs.

Facts

The applicant had sued the respondent in High Court Civil Suit No. 182 of 2010 for a refund of monies retained as VAT since 2004 in respect of operations carried out for Kampala City Council. The High Court dismissed the suit on 25 January 2013. On appeal, the Court of Appeal in Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2013 allowed the appeal, ordered the VAT refunded, and ordered the sum to carry interest at 2% per month compounded from the time it was paid until the date of judgment, and thereafter 10% per annum until payment in full. The respondent appealed to the Supreme Court (Civil Appeal No. 13 of 2015); the applicant did not cross-appeal but supported the entire judgment. The Supreme Court, by a 4 to 1 majority on 5 May 2017, upheld the Court of Appeal decision in all respects. The applicant then applied under the slip rule to vary the interest orders, contending the interest should run until refund under section 44(1) of the VAT Act.

Issues

  1. Whether the Court of Appeal's order on payment of interest in Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2013 contained a clerical or arithmetical mistake or an error arising from an accidental slip or omission correctable under Rule 36.
  2. Whether section 44(1) of the VAT Act applied so as to require interest to run until the VAT was refunded.
  3. Whether the Court could exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Rule 2(2) to correct the judgment.
  4. Whether the applicant could seek to vary orders already confirmed by the Supreme Court.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs to the respondent.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Slip Rule — Distinction Between Accidental Errors and Grounds of Appeal
A clerical or arithmetical mistake correctable under the slip rule is one due to inadvertence that is apparent and self-evident on the face of the record and does not involve re-appraisal of evidence; it is distinct from an error of reasoning on law or fact, which constitutes a ground of appeal to be raised in a higher court.
Civil Procedure — Slip Rule — Judicial Discretion Not Correctable
An award of interest made in the exercise of judicial discretion is not an error arising from an accidental slip or omission and cannot be altered under the slip rule.
Tax Law — VAT Act s.44(1) — Scope of Interest on Refunds
Section 44(1) of the VAT Act applies only where the Commissioner General is required to refund tax as a result of a decision of a reviewing body (the Tax Appeals Tribunal or, on appeal, the High Court); it does not govern a court's discretion to award interest in a suit originating in the High Court's original jurisdiction.
Civil Procedure — Finality of Litigation — Reopening Orders Confirmed on Appeal
A party who failed to cross-appeal and instead supported a judgment that was subsequently confirmed by the final appellate court cannot use the slip rule or inherent jurisdiction to reopen the confirmed orders, as it is in the interest of all persons that there be an end to litigation.

Legislation cited (7)

  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions Rule 2(2)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions Rule 36
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions Rule 43
  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions Rule 35
  • Civil Procedure Act Cap.71 s.99
  • Value Added Tax Act Cap.349 s.44(1)
  • Tax Appeals Tribunals Act Cap.345 s.28

Cases cited (2)

  • British American Tobacco Uganda v Sedrach Mwijabuki and 4 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 7 of 2013)
  • Lakhamshi Brothers Ltd v R. Raja & Sons (1966) EA 313
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.