Wakilii

Uganda Revenue Authority v Murisa (Civil Appeal 128 of 2018)

Court of Appeal · [2021] UGCA 202 · 2021 Appeal Allowed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First appeal from High Court judgment awarding damages for malicious prosecution
Decision
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside and the suit dismissed with costs

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment
Cited — treatment unverified cited in 2 (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 allowed the Authority's appeal against a High Court judgment that had found the respondent, a former cashier, was maliciously prosecuted. The Court held that where a magistrate finds an accused has a case to answer, a subsequent civil suit for malicious prosecution cannot be sustained. On the evidence, including a forged receipt showing only UGX 20,000 banked against an assessment of UGX 5,442,120, the Authority had reasonable and probable cause to prosecute. The trial Judge had placed a higher burden on the complainant than the law requires and failed to examine the criminal court and police records. The suit was dismissed with costs.

Facts

The respondent, formerly a cashier with the appellant Authority, was prosecuted following the appellant's complaint. In Criminal Case No. 509 of 2009 he was charged with fraudulent evasion of customs duty and making a false entry and was acquitted after a full trial. In Criminal Case No. 530 of 2006 he faced counts of causing financial loss and abuse of office and was acquitted on a submission of no case to answer. He then sued the appellant for malicious prosecution and was awarded UGX 200,000,000 general damages, UGX 21,000,000 punitive damages and interest at 27% per annum. The evidence showed that for the same consignment two receipts bearing the same number (2250967) were issued: one showing UGX 5,442,120 paid (used to clear goods), and another showing only UGX 20,000 paid by a different taxpayer. Only UGX 20,000 was actually received, causing the Authority a loss of over 5.4 million in tax revenue. The respondent, as cashier, issued the receipts on which the goods were cleared.

Issues

  1. Whether the respondent was arrested and prosecuted without reasonable and probable cause and was maliciously prosecuted.
  2. Whether the trial Judge properly evaluated the evidence on record.
  3. Whether the damages awarded were excessive or made without following proper principles.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Judgment of the High Court set aside and substituted with an order dismissing the suit with costs.
  • Respondent to pay costs in the Court of Appeal and the High Court with interest at court rate.

Key headnotes

Tort Law — Malicious Prosecution — Effect of Finding of a Case to Answer
Where a court of law has determined that an accused person has a case to answer, the prosecution having adduced sufficient evidence to require the accused to be put on his defence, a subsequent civil suit for malicious prosecution cannot be sustained.
Tort Law — Malicious Prosecution — Reasonable and Probable Cause
Reasonable and probable cause requires only sufficient ground for thinking the accused was probably guilty; the test is whether a reasonable person acting on the evidence available at the time would have commenced prosecution, not whether the prosecutor believed in the probability of conviction.
Criminal Law & Procedure — No Case to Answer — Duty of Magistrate to Evaluate Evidence
A submission of no case to answer may only be upheld where there is no evidence on an essential element or the prosecution evidence is so discredited that no reasonable tribunal could convict; submissions of counsel do not constitute evidence, and a magistrate must independently evaluate each witness and exhibit rather than rely on counsel's submissions alone.
Civil Procedure — Malicious Prosecution — Burden and Production of Records
In a civil suit for malicious prosecution the plaintiff bears the burden of producing the relevant police and lower court records; the civil court must examine those records to determine whether the prosecution was malicious and without reasonable cause, and the suit is not a re-trial of the criminal charges.
Civil Procedure — First Appeal — Duty to Re-evaluate Evidence
On a first appeal the Court of Appeal has a duty to re-evaluate the evidence adduced at trial and reach its own decision, making its own inferences on all questions of law and fact.

Legislation cited (7)

  • Penal Code Act s.269
  • Penal Code Act s.87
  • East African Community Customs Management Act 2004 s.203(e)
  • East African Community Customs Management Act 2004 s.203(a)
  • Magistrates Courts Act s.14(1)
  • Magistrates Courts Act s.127
  • Rules of the Court of Appeal r.30(1)

Cases cited (5)

  • Glinski v McIver [1962] 1 All E.R. 696
  • Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
  • Bogere Moses v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1997)
  • Bhatt v R (1957) E.A. 332
  • Uganda v Kato Kajubi Godfrey (Criminal Appeal No. 39 of 2010)
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.