Utoda v Uganda Revenue Authority [2019] UGSC 27

Supreme Court · 2019 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Appeal to the Supreme Court from the Court of Appeal's dismissal of an application under Rule 36 to correct its decree under the slip rule

Decision

Appeal dismissed; the Court of Appeal's refusal to correct its decree under the slip rule upheld

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this 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 the appeal. Once the Court of Appeal's judgment in Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2013 had been upheld by the Supreme Court, it became a decision of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal lost all jurisdiction to vary or correct its decree under the slip rule (Rule 36). A decree altered after confirmation on appeal would be a nullity. The appellant's distinction between 'affirm', 'confirm' and 'uphold' was rejected as fallacious, words being construed in context. Because the question of jurisdiction was fundamental and overrode the other grounds, the Court declined to consider the remaining grounds and dismissed the appeal with costs.

Facts

UTODA managed taxi parks and taxi operators in Kampala on behalf of the then Kampala City Council. The Uganda Revenue Authority retained UGX 3,903,136,565 from UTODA as Value Added Tax on those operations dating from 2001. UTODA sued for a refund. The High Court found UTODA liable for VAT. On appeal in Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2013, the Court of Appeal reversed and ordered URA to refund the full VAT, with interest at 2% per month compounded from the date paid until the date of judgment, and 10% per annum thereafter until payment in full. The Supreme Court upheld that judgment in Civil Appeal No. 13 of 2015. During execution, the parties disputed how the interest ran. UTODA filed Miscellaneous Application No. 152 of 2017 in the Court of Appeal under Rule 36, seeking to correct the interest order as an accidental slip. The Court of Appeal dismissed the application by a 2-1 majority, holding that it lacked jurisdiction. UTODA appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues

Whether the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to correct its decree after that decree had been confirmed and upheld on appeal by the Supreme Court.
Whether the alleged error in the award of interest amounted to an accidental slip or omission correctable under Rule 36 of the Court of Appeal Rules.

Orders

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Slip Rule — Jurisdiction to correct a decree after confirmation on appeal

Once a Court of Appeal decision has been upheld by the Supreme Court on appeal, it becomes a decision of the Supreme Court, and the Court of Appeal loses all jurisdiction to vary or correct its own decree under the slip rule.

Civil Procedure — Decree — Nullity for want of jurisdiction

A decree passed or altered by a court that lacks jurisdiction is a nullity; an altered decree ceases to be the same decree confirmed by the higher court.

Civil Procedure — Slip Rule — Scope confined to clerical or arithmetical errors

The slip rule under Rule 36 permits correction only of clerical or arithmetical errors arising from an accidental slip or omission, and cannot be used to reopen a substantive point of law or as a disguised appeal.

Statutory Interpretation — Meaning of words in context — 'affirm', 'confirm' and 'uphold'

Words must be construed in their context; 'affirm', 'confirm' and 'uphold' each carry the effect of maintaining a judgment on appeal, and a word cannot be isolated from its context to be given a divergent meaning.

Legislation cited (7)

Court of Appeal Rules r.36
Rules of the Supreme Court r.88
Value Added Tax Act s.44(1)
Value Added Tax Act s.44(1)(c)
Value Added Tax (Amendment) Act No. 2 of 2002
Tax Appeals Tribunal Act s.28
Constitution of the Republic of Uganda art.126(2)(e)

Cases cited (7)

British American Tobacco (Uganda) Ltd v Sedrach Mwijabuki and 4 Others (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2013)
British American Tobbaco (U) Ltd vs. Sedrach Mwijabuki & 4 others, SCCA No. 01 of 2012
Hotel Balaji vs. State of A.P AIR 1993 SC 1048
Sanjiv Datta Dy. Secy vs. Ministry of Information & Broadcasting (1995) 3 SCC 619
Lakhamshi Brothers Ltd vs. R. Raja & sons (1966) E.A 313
Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1998)
Adam Vassiladis v Libyan Arab (U) (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 2 of 1992)

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.