Wakilii

Uganda Tax Operators & Drivers Association v Uganda Revenue Authority (Civil Application 24 of 2019)

Supreme Court · [2021] UGSC 61 · 2021 Application Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to the Supreme Court for review and correction (under Rules 2(2) and 35(1)) of part of the Court's own judgment in Civil Appeal No. 13 of 2015 concerning the interest awarded.
Decision
Application for review dismissed with costs; the Supreme Court's earlier decision and orders in Civil Appeal No. 13 of 2015 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 Supreme Court dismissed an application to review and rewrite the interest order in its earlier judgment (Civil Appeal No. 13 of 2015), which had upheld the Court of Appeal's award of post-judgment interest at 10% p.a. The Court held that review under Rule 2(2) requires substantial and compelling circumstances or an error apparent on the face of the record, not mere dissatisfaction; the applicant's contention that the order misapplied section 44(1)(c) of the VAT Act was a challenge to the merits, amounting to a disguised appeal. The slip rule (Rule 35(1)) did not apply because the proposed correction would alter the meaning and effect of the decision rather than give effect to the Court's original intention. Application dismissed with costs.

Facts

The applicant sued the Uganda Revenue Authority for a refund of VAT retained from its taxi-park management operations. The High Court dismissed the suit, but the Court of Appeal (Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2013) allowed the appeal and ordered a refund of UGX 3,903,136,565, carrying interest at 2% per month compounded until the date of judgment, and thereafter 10% p.a. until payment in full. The Supreme Court upheld that judgment in its entirety in Civil Appeal No. 13 of 2015. The applicant later sought, through proceedings in the Court of Appeal (dismissed for want of jurisdiction) and in the Supreme Court (Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2018, dismissed), to correct the post-judgment interest from 10% p.a. to 2% per month compounded, contending the order contravened the mandatory terms of section 44(1)(c) of the VAT Act. The respondent contended it had already satisfied the decree in full. The applicant then brought this application for review of the Supreme Court's own judgment.

Issues

  1. Whether the application for review is barred by res judicata under section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act.
  2. Whether there were substantial and compelling circumstances, or an error apparent on the face of the record, justifying review of the Court's judgment under Rule 2(2) of the Rules of the Supreme Court.
  3. Whether the interest award amounted to a clerical or arithmetical mistake or accidental slip or omission correctable under the slip rule in Rule 35(1) of the Rules of the Supreme Court.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.
  • The decision and orders of the Court in Civil Appeal No. 13 of 2015 are upheld.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Res Judicata — Issue heard and finally decided on appeal — Civil Procedure Act s.7
Where the issue in contention has been directly and substantially heard and finally decided between the same parties by a competent court, the doctrine of res judicata under section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act bars its re-litigation; however, res judicata does not preclude a properly constituted application to review that decision where the review question itself was not previously determined.
Civil Procedure — Review of Supreme Court Judgment — Rule 2(2) — Finality of decisions and error apparent on the record
A judgment of the Supreme Court is final, and review under Rule 2(2) is justified only upon circumstances of a substantial and compelling character, including an error apparent on the face of the record that is self-evident and requires no elaborate process of reasoning; mere dissatisfaction with the decision does not warrant review.
Civil Procedure — Review distinguished from appeal — Disguised appeal
An application that, in substance, challenges the correctness of the court's reasoning or invites a fresh decision on the merits is a disguised appeal and falls outside the parameters of the court's review jurisdiction, the court not being able to sit on appeal against its own decision.
Civil Procedure — Slip Rule — Rule 35(1) — Limits of correction
The slip rule under Rule 35(1) permits correction only of a clerical or arithmetical mistake or an error arising from an accidental slip or omission, and only so as to give effect to the court's intention when judgment was given; it cannot be used to alter the meaning or effect of a decision the court intended to make.
Statutory Interpretation — Tax statutes — Strict construction — Section 44(1)(c) VAT Act
Although taxing statutes are to be construed strictly, an argument that a court misapplied a statutory interest provision such as section 44(1)(c) of the Value Added Tax Act goes to the merits of the decision and is to be raised on appeal or cross-appeal, not by way of an application for review or under the slip rule.

Legislation cited (8)

  • Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules r.2(2)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules r.35
  • Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules r.42(1)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules r.42(2)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules r.43
  • Constitution of Uganda art.126
  • Value Added Tax Act s.44(1)(c)
  • Civil Procedure Act s.7

Cases cited (22)

  • Mansukhlal Ramji Karia & Anor v Attorney General and 2 Others (Civil Appeal No. 20 of 2002)
  • General Parts (U) Ltd and Haruna Ssemakula v Non-Performing Assets Recovery Trust (Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2005)
  • Otim Moses v Uganda (Criminal Application No. 14 of 2018)
  • Fang Min v Dr. Kaijuka Mutabazi Emmanuel (Civil Application No. 6 of 2009)
  • Orient Bank Ltd v Fredrick Zaabwe & Anor (Civil Application No. 17 of 2007)
  • Isaya Kalya & Others v Moses Macekenyu Ikagobya (Civil Application No. 28 of 2015)
  • Livingstone Ssewanyana v Martin Aliker (Civil Application No. 4 of 1991)
  • G. Afro v Uganda Breweries Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2008)
  • Uganda Revenue Authority v Siraje Hassan Kajura (Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2015)
  • Makula International Ltd v His Eminence Cardinal Nsubuga & Anor (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1981)
  • National Social Security Fund & Anor v Alcon International (Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2009)
  • Tropical Africa Bank Ltd v Grace Were Muhwana (Civil Application No. 3 of 2012)
  • Vallabhadas Karsandas Raniga v Mansukhlal Jiraj [1965] EA 700
  • Uganda Development Bank Ltd v Oil Seeds (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 15 of 1997)
  • Independent Medico Legal Unit v Attorney General of the Republic of Kenya (Application No. 2 of 2012)
  • Lakhamishi Brothers Ltd v R. Raja and Sons (1966) EA 313
  • Ormond Investment Co. Ltd v Betts (Inspector of Taxes) [1928] AC 143
  • Cape Brandy Syndicate v Commissioners of Inland Revenue (1921) 12 TC 358
  • Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v Aribam Pishak Sharma (1979) 4 SCC 389
  • Haridas Das v Smt. Usha Rani Banik & Others (Civil Appeal No. 7948 of 2004)
  • Smti Meera Bhanja v. Smti Nirmala Kumari (Choudry) 1995 SC 455
  • Thugabhadra Industries Ltd v. The Government of Andra Pradesh 1964 AIR 1372; 1164 SCR (5) 174
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.