Wakilii

World Point Group Ltd v Attorney General and Another (Civil Appeal No. 105 of 2018)

Court of Appeal · [2025] UGCA 375 · 2025 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal and cross-appeal from a High Court (Commercial Division) judgment in a suit to recover taxes paid and damages arising from a duty-free sugar import licence.
Decision
Both the appeal and the cross-appeal dismissed; the trial court's judgment (including the refund of taxes on duty-free sugar sold in Uganda) upheld.

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment

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 both the appeal and the cross-appeal. It held that re-exporting duty-free sugar to other EAC partner states breached the import licence terms and EAC Legal Notice No. 37 of 2011 and was illegal and contrary to public policy; applying the ex turpi causa principle, no damages, including transport and demurrage costs, could be awarded for losses flowing from that illegality. Special damages were neither strictly proved nor capable of quantification. The court found no duty of care in tort, as the Legal Notice created no compensatory statutory obligation and the second respondent had certified the appellant's bona fide status. On the cross-appeal, the trial court's order refunding taxes wrongly levied on duty-free sugar sold in Uganda was upheld.

Facts

During a 2011 national sugar shortage, the Government invited private companies to import sugar duty-free. The appellant obtained a licence to import 2,000 metric tons of sugar from India under EAC Legal Notice No. 37 of 2011 and the 2010 Sugar Policy, complying with the stipulated procedures. Operational delays at the Port of Mombasa impeded timely clearance, and by the time the sugar reached the region the shortage had eased. Although the second respondent certified the appellant as a bona fide importer, the Uganda Revenue Authority later declined to honour the duty-free facility and demanded import duties. The appellant paid some taxes and re-exported part of the consignment to Rwanda, South Sudan and the DRC to mitigate loss, despite a licence condition prohibiting re-export to EAC partner states and requiring storage of the sugar in approved warehouses in Uganda. It claimed special damages and lost profits. The trial court ordered a refund of taxes on duty-free sugar sold in Uganda, with interest, but refused general, aggravated and exemplary damages and damages connected to the re-export.

Issues

  1. Whether the re-export of the duty-free sugar was contrary to public policy such that the appellant was not entitled to an award of transport and demurrage charges.
  2. Whether the trial judge erred in failing to grant general, aggravated and exemplary damages.
  3. Whether the second respondent (Uganda Revenue Authority) owed the appellant a duty of care in tort arising from its role under EAC Legal Notice No. 37 of 2011.
  4. Whether (on cross-appeal) the trial judge erred in ordering the cross appellant to refund taxes paid on duty-free sugar sold in the domestic market.

Orders

  • The appellant's appeal, Civil Appeal No. 105 of 2018, is dismissed.
  • The decision of the trial court as to costs is upheld, but each party is to bear their own costs on appeal.
  • The second respondent's/cross appellant's cross-appeal is dismissed with costs to the cross respondent/appellant.

Key headnotes

Illegality — Ex Turpi Causa — No Recovery of Loss Flowing from an Illegal Act
A court will not enforce rights or award damages for losses arising out of a party's own illegal conduct; where an importer re-exports duty-free sugar in breach of the licence terms and EAC Legal Notice No. 37 of 2011, no damages, including transport and demurrage costs, can be recovered for that re-export.
Negligence — Duty of Care — Public Authority Exercising a Statutory Power
Where a statute or legal instrument conferring a power on a public authority does not expressly provide for compensation, no common law duty of care to compensate for resulting loss will be implied against that authority.
Special Damages — Specific Pleading and Strict Proof
Special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved by documentary or cogent oral evidence; a claim unsupported by such evidence, or whose quantum cannot be established from the record, must fail.
Exemplary and Aggravated Damages — Threshold for Award
Exemplary or aggravated damages are awarded only in limited circumstances, notably where there is oppressive, arbitrary or unconstitutional conduct by a defendant; a claim grounded in breach of contract without associated tortious wrongdoing does not meet the threshold.
Refund of Duties — Taxes Wrongly Levied on Duty-Free Goods
Where goods imported under a valid duty-free exemption are sold domestically and taxes are nonetheless levied, the importer is entitled to a refund of those duties, the amount being established from the revenue authority's own records.

Legislation cited (4)

  • East African Community Customs Management Act s.117
  • Civil Procedure Act s.26(2)
  • Civil Procedure Act s.27
  • East African Community Legal Notice No. 37 of 2011

Cases cited (16)

  • Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
  • Yakobo M.N. Senkungu and 4 Others v Cresensio Mukasa (Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2014)
  • Thai Airways International Public Company Ltd v KI Holdings Co Ltd [2015] EWHC 1250 (Comm)
  • Masaka Municipal Council v Takaya Frank (Civil Appeal No. 0123 of 2015)
  • Patel v Mirza [2016] UKSC 42
  • Kisugu Quarries Ltd v Administrator General [1999] 7 EA 763
  • Hadley v Baxendale (1854) All ER Rep 461
  • Rookes v Barnard [1964] AC 1129
  • Uganda Revenue Authority v Wanume (Civil Appeal No. 3 of 1993)
  • Eladam Enterprises Ltd v SGS (U) Ltd & 2 Others (citation?)
  • Stovin v Wise [1996] 3 All ER 801
  • R v Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex parte Unilever plc [1996] STC 681
  • R v North and East Devon Health Authority, ex parte Coughlan [2001] QB 213
  • Gapco (U) Ltd v AS Transporters (Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2007)
  • Okupa Elijah & Others v Attorney General MC 14 of 2008
  • Kakumba v Kobil (U) Ltd (HCCS No. 098 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.