Wakilii

The Commissioner General Uganda Revenue Authority v Meera Investments Ltd (Civil Appeal 22 of 2007)

Supreme Court · [2009] UGSC 3 · 2009 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Second appeal to the Supreme Court from the Court of Appeal's dismissal of an appeal against the High Court's overruling of preliminary objections.
Decision
Appeal dismissed; original suit remitted to the High Court for expeditious disposal on the merits.

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment
Treatment recorded in citing cases followed in 1 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 Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. It held that the Commissioner General URA, being empowered by statute (Income Tax Act s.104(2) and URA Act s.10(2)) to sue and recover tax in an official name, is by necessary implication liable to be sued in that same official name, so was a proper party. No statutory notice of intention to sue is required. The suit was not premature: it concerned interpretation of and the relationship between statutory bodies, not mere tax assessment, so the Tax Appeals Tribunal procedure was no precondition; the High Court's original jurisdiction under Article 139(1) cannot be ousted by an Act of Parliament. Only ground 4, on the certificate for two counsel, succeeded.

Facts

The Uganda Investment Authority, under the Investment Code, issued the respondent a certificate of incentives exempting some of its properties from tax. The Commissioner General of the Uganda Revenue Authority later assessed and demanded tax on certain of those properties, claiming they fell within the taxed category. The respondent objected and filed a civil suit in the High Court seeking declarations as to its tax liability, contending that the Commissioner General was overriding the decisions of another statutory body. The appellant raised preliminary objections that the Commissioner General was the wrong party, that mandatory statutory notice had not been served, and that the suit was premature because internal tax-dispute procedures applied. The High Court overruled the objections; the Court of Appeal upheld that decision. The Commissioner General appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues

  1. Whether the Commissioner General of the Uganda Revenue Authority is a proper party to be sued, or whether the Uganda Revenue Authority should have been the defendant.
  2. Whether statutory notice of intention to sue must be served before instituting a suit against the Commissioner General.
  3. Whether the suit was prematurely before the High Court because the dispute had inbuilt internal and appeal procedures excluding the court's original jurisdiction.
  4. Whether the Court of Appeal erred in granting a certificate for two counsel.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with three-quarters costs to the respondent here and in the two courts below, for one counsel only.
  • Ground four (certificate for two counsel) allowed.
  • Original Suit No. 185 of 2005 remitted to the High Court to be disposed of expeditiously on the merits.

Key headnotes

Tax Law — Proper Party — Capacity of the Commissioner General to be Sued
A statutory officer empowered to sue and recover tax in an official name, as the Commissioner General is under section 104(2) of the Income Tax Act, is by necessary implication liable to be sued in that same official name by a party aggrieved by the tax assessments made by the officer or staff under him or her.
Civil Procedure — Statutory Notice — Suit Against the Commissioner General
No statutory notice of intention to sue is required before instituting proceedings against the Commissioner General in an official capacity, since the officer who may sue expeditiously to recover tax cannot shelter behind the requirement of statutory notice against a taxpayer asserting the corresponding right to sue.
Constitutional Law — Jurisdiction of the High Court — Ouster by Act of Parliament
The unlimited original jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 139(1) of the Constitution cannot be ousted by an Act of Parliament, except by constitutional amendment; a party aggrieved by a tax decision may elect to apply to the Tax Appeals Tribunal or to file a suit in the High Court.
Tax Law — Premature Suit — Exhaustion of Tribunal Procedure
Where a dispute concerns the interpretation of and relationship between statutory enactments and statutory bodies rather than the mere assessment, demand or quantum of tax, the internal tax-tribunal procedure is not a precondition to suit and the question of prematurity does not arise.
Civil Procedure — Costs — Certificate for Two Counsel
A certificate for two counsel must be supported by reasons; a court that grants such a certificate without advancing any reasons, where none have been shown by counsel, errs.

Legislation cited (32)

  • Uganda Revenue Authority Act Cap.196 s.2(2)
  • Uganda Revenue Authority Act Cap.196 s.10(1)
  • Uganda Revenue Authority Act Cap.196 s.10(2)
  • Uganda Revenue Authority Act Cap.196 s.10(3)
  • Uganda Revenue Authority Act Cap.196 s.11
  • Uganda Revenue Authority Act Cap.196 s.12
  • Income Tax Act Cap.340 s.100
  • Income Tax Act Cap.340 s.101
  • Income Tax Act Cap.340 s.104
  • Income Tax Act Cap.340 s.104(2)
  • Income Tax Act Cap.340 s.104(3)
  • Income Tax Act Cap.340 s.147
  • Income Tax Act Cap.340 s.151
  • Income Tax Act Cap.340 s.153
  • Income Tax Act Cap.340 s.154
  • Value Added Tax Act Cap.349 s.63
  • Value Added Tax Act Cap.349 s.65(3)
  • Civil Procedure and Limitation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act Cap.72
  • Tax Appeals Tribunal Act s.16(1)
  • Tax Appeals Tribunal Act s.16(4)
  • Tax Appeals Tribunal Act s.16(6)
  • Tax Appeals Tribunal Act s.16(7)
  • Tax Appeals Tribunal Act s.18
  • Tax Appeals Tribunal Act s.19(3)
  • Tax Appeals Tribunal Act s.19(6)
  • Tax Appeals Tribunal Act s.20
  • Tax Appeals Tribunal Act s.22(2)
  • Tax Appeals Tribunal Act s.27
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 139(1)
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 152(3)
  • Civil Procedure Rules Cap.71
  • Investment Code Statute No.1 of 1991

Cases cited (9)

  • Rabo Enterprises (U) Ltd v Commissioner General, Uganda Revenue Authority (Civil Appeal No. 51 of 2003)
  • Giella v Cassman Brown & Co Ltd [1973] EA 358
  • Kanjee Naranjee V. Income Tax Commissioner, P.C. No 47 of 1962
  • Civil Appeal No 14 of 2002 (S.C), (Unreported)
  • Commissioner of Income Tax, v. Bell (T.M.) (C.A.), (E.A)224
  • Commissioner of Income Tax, v. Godinho (Maria R.S.) (U) (E.A) 977
  • R. v. Commissioner General of Income Tax, I.E.A.T.C 36
  • R. v. Commissioners of Income Tax (1889) 22 Q.B.D. 296
  • Commissioner General of Income Tax.v Kigange Estates Ltd (1968) E.A 464
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.