Wakilii

Kajura v Uganda Revenue Authority (Civil Application 26 of 2018)

Supreme Court · [2020] UGSC 26 · 2020 Application Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to recall and review a final judgment of the Supreme Court (Civil Appeal No. 09 of 2015) under Rules 2(2) and 35 of the Supreme Court Rules
Decision
Application to recall the judgment in Civil Appeal No. 09 of 2015 dismissed with costs

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

An application to recall the Supreme Court's judgment in a tax appeal was dismissed. The Court held that its decision on any issue of law or fact is final and cannot be reversed by way of review; it may only revisit a decision under Rule 2(2) (inherent power to achieve the ends of justice, prevent abuse of process, or set aside a judgment proved null and void) or Rule 35 (the slip rule for accidental clerical or arithmetical errors). The applicant's grounds repeated arguments already raised and resolved in the appeal and amounted to a disguised appeal. The Court found no illegality or error in the justices' exercise of discretion warranting recall.

Facts

The applicant and 160 other employees of the defunct Dairy Corporation Ltd were retrenched with effect from 31 August 2006. The Privatization Unit of the Ministry of Finance paid them terminal benefits, and Uganda Revenue Authority computed and collected UGX 1,171,778,314 as PAYE on those benefits. The applicant, in a representative capacity, challenged the assessment in High Court Civil Suit No. 117 of 2009, contending the payments were a non-taxable 'thank you' akin to gratuity. The High Court and the Court of Appeal both found PAYE had been unlawfully charged. On the respondent's further appeal, the Supreme Court (Civil Appeal No. 09 of 2015), by majority, allowed the appeal and set aside the lower courts' judgments, holding the retrenchment packages were taxable. Dissatisfied, the applicant brought this application to recall that judgment, alleging errors of fact and law on the face of the record.

Issues

  1. Whether the application to recall the Supreme Court's judgment in Civil Appeal No. 09 of 2015 fell within the inherent power under Rule 2(2) or the slip rule under Rule 35 of the Supreme Court Rules.
  2. Whether the application was in substance a disguised appeal against the Court's own final decision.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • Costs of the application to the respondent.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Review of Final Decisions — Finality of Supreme Court Judgments
The decision of the Supreme Court on any issue of law or fact is final, and an unsuccessful party cannot apply for its reversal; the same court cannot sit on appeal against its own decision.
Civil Procedure — Review — Scope of Rules 2(2) and 35 of the Supreme Court Rules
Rule 2(2) preserves the Court's inherent power to revisit a judgment only to achieve the ends of justice, to prevent abuse of process, or to set aside a judgment proved null and void, while Rule 35(1) is confined to correcting accidental clerical, arithmetical, or slip errors; neither permits reconsideration of the merits.
Civil Procedure — Review — Disguised Appeal — Apparent Error on the Face of the Record
An application for review that re-argues grounds already raised and resolved on appeal is a disguised appeal and will not succeed; relief lies only where the alleged error is apparent on the face of the record and falls within the limited instances under Rule 2(2), with misconstruction of a statute being a ground for appeal rather than review.

Legislation cited (8)

  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) (Directions) S.I 13-11 r.2(2)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) (Directions) S.I 13-11 r.35(1)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) (Directions) S.I 13-11 r.42
  • Income Tax Act Cap.340 s.19
  • Income Tax Act Cap.340 s.19(6)
  • Public Enterprises Reform and Divestiture Act 1993 s.21
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 17(1)
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 152(1)

Cases cited (4)

  • Otim Moses v Uganda (Criminal Application No. 14 of 2018)
  • Isaya Kalya & 2 Others v Moses Macekenyu Ikagobya (Civil Application No. 28 of 2015)
  • Orient Bank Limited v Fredrick Zaabwe & Mars Trading Limited (Civil Application No. 17 of 2007)
  • Haridas v. Suit. Usha Rani Banik & Others
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.