Wakilii

Uganda Revenue Authority v Shell (U) Ltd & 10 ors

Supreme Court · [2015] UGSC 6 · 2015 Application Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application under Rule 2(2) of the Supreme Court Rules seeking the court's guidance on the interpretation and enforcement of its judgment in Civil Appeal No. 02 of 2013
Decision
Application dismissed; applicant remains liable to recover the sums paid to the 11th respondent and to pay the respondents in compliance with the judgment in Civil Appeal No. 02 of 2013

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 Supreme Court dismissed URA's application brought under Rule 2(2) of its Rules seeking interpretation and enforcement of the judgment in Civil Appeal No. 02 of 2013. The court held that Rule 2(2) confers inherent power to achieve justice and prevent abuse of process but does not empower the court to reverse its own decision unless the judgment is proved null and void. Granting the orders sought would amount to reversing that judgment. URA had paid the lawyer's fees to a wrong party under an illegal agreement and must recover and pay the respondents in compliance with the decision. Reviving matters available at the appeal, and failing to serve the 11th respondent, was an abuse of process.

Facts

Following the Supreme Court's judgment in Civil Appeal No. 02 of 2013, which severed and struck down as illegal a remuneration agreement entitling Muwema & Mugerwa Advocates (the 11th respondent) to 16% of a refund owed by URA to ten oil companies, the oil companies remained entitled to their full refund ordered in HCCS OS 9 of 2009. While the appeal was pending, the 11th respondent had executed earlier orders and garnisheed URA's accounts, and URA paid it some 5.4 billion shillings in lawyer's fees. After the oil companies sought to execute the judgment against URA for the outstanding balance, URA brought this application asking the court to interpret its judgment, direct that the sums paid to the 11th respondent discharged its duty, and bar execution against it. URA had earlier appeared before the Registrar, agreed the balance due was about 1.8 billion shillings, and demanded a refund from the 11th respondent.

Issues

  1. Whether the matter was res judicata in light of the prior execution ruling of the Registrar in Misc Application No. 13 of 2014.
  2. Whether the application under Rule 2(2) of the Supreme Court Rules was a competent vehicle to seek interpretation and enforcement of the court's judgment in Civil Appeal No. 02 of 2013 or an abuse of court process.
  3. Whether the applicant had fully discharged its obligation to pay the respondents by paying the lawyer's fees to the 11th respondent under execution.
  4. Whether the court could declare the applicant's duty discharged without thereby reversing its own judgment in Civil Appeal No. 02 of 2013.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs to the respondents.
  • Misc Application No. 13 of 2014 is held to have been filed against the right party, the applicant.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Inherent Powers of the Court — Rule 2(2) Supreme Court Rules — Limits on Reversing a Final Judgment
The inherent power of the court under Rule 2(2) of the Supreme Court Rules to make orders necessary to achieve the ends of justice or prevent abuse of process does not empower the court to reverse its own decision unless the judgment has been proved null and void after it was passed.
Civil Procedure — Abuse of Process — Finality of Litigation — Reviving Matters Available at Appeal
There must be an end to litigation; raising a matter that was within a party's knowledge at the time of the appeal, after the court has made a final determination, is an abuse of the process of the court.
Civil Procedure — Execution — Payment to a Wrong Party Under an Illegal Agreement
Where a party pays money to a wrong party under an illegal agreement, it does not discharge its obligation to the judgment creditor; the paying party must recover the money and pay in compliance with the court's decision.
Civil Procedure — Execution — Dissatisfaction with Registrar's Decision — Remedy by Reference to a Single Judge
A party dissatisfied with a decision of the Registrar on a matter of law or principle in execution or taxation must proceed by way of reference to a single judge of the court under Rule 106(1), and cannot revisit the matter through a fresh application to the full court.

Legislation cited (7)

  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions Rule 2(2)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions Rule 42
  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions Rule 43
  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions Rule 106(1)
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 23 Rule 7
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 6 Rule 28
  • Civil Procedure Act s.7

Cases cited (6)

  • British American Tobacco (U) Ltd v Sedrach Mwijakubi and 4 Others (Supreme Court Miscellaneous Application No. 07 of 2013)
  • Livingstone Sewanyana v Martin Aliker (Miscellaneous Application No. 40 of 1991)
  • Orient Bank v Zabwe and Another (Civil Application No. 17 of 2007)
  • Nsereko Joseph, Kisukye Sarah and Others v Bank of Uganda (Civil Application No. 1 of 2002)
  • Ibrahim Ruhweza v Uganda (Criminal Application No. 1 of 2014)
  • Hadkinson v Hadkinson [1952] 2 All ER 567
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.