Wakilii

Accross Africa Clearing & Forwarding Co. Ltd v Uganda Revenue Authority & Anor (HCT-00-CC-MA 3 of 2012)

High Court · [2013] UGCOMMC 15 · 2013 Leave to Appeal Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal against orders and ruling in a preliminary objection raised in judicial review proceedings
Decision
Leave to appeal granted to respondents to appeal against the court's ruling on preliminary objections

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains 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 court granted leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal against its ruling allowing preliminary objections to proceed in judicial review proceedings. Held that applications for leave to appeal may be made informally or orally, not necessarily by Notice of Motion. Leave should be granted where prima facie there are grounds of appeal meriting serious judicial consideration, or where the intended appeal has reasonable chance of success and the applicant has not been guilty of dilatory conduct. Where respondents raise a point of law going to the root of the application and substantive justice under Article 126(e) of the Constitution requires determination of that point, leave should be granted.

Outcome

Leave to appeal granted to respondents to appeal against the court's ruling on preliminary objections

Facts

The applicant, a clearing agent registered by Uganda Revenue Authority, had its licence suspended and terminated. It filed judicial review proceedings seeking certiorari, declarations, mandamus, prohibition, injunction, damages and costs against Uganda Revenue Authority and Sarah Kashekwa Mwesigye. Before the substantive hearing, counsel for the respondents sought to raise preliminary objections alleging the entire application was incompetent. Counsel for the applicant objected, arguing that under Order 6 rule 28 of the Civil Procedure Rules, preliminary objections on points of law must be stated in the pleadings, and since the respondents had not raised the point in their affidavit in reply, the court should proceed to hear the substantive application. The court overruled this objection. The respondents then orally applied for leave to appeal against that ruling.

Issues

  1. Whether an application for leave to appeal may be made orally or must be brought by Notice of Motion under Order 40 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. Whether leave to appeal should be granted where the respondents contend that the underlying judicial review application is incompetent on a point of law going to the root of the application.

Orders

  • Application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal granted.
  • Costs in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Leave to Appeal — Form of Application — Oral versus Notice of Motion
An application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal may be made informally or orally and need not necessarily be brought by Notice of Motion under Order 40 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Civil Procedure — Leave to Appeal — Principles for Grant
Leave to appeal will normally be granted where prima facie it appears that there are grounds of appeal which merit serious judicial consideration, or where the applicant shows that the intended appeal has reasonable chance of success or has arguable grounds of appeal and has not been guilty of dilatory conduct.
Administrative Law — Judicial Review — Preliminary Objections — Point of Law Going to Root of Application
Where a respondent in judicial review proceedings raises a point of law touching the entire root of the application and going to its competence, and substantive justice under Article 126(e) of the Constitution requires proper determination of that point, leave to appeal should be granted to allow appellate consideration of that fundamental issue.

Legislation cited (14)

Cases cited (2)

  • Sango Bay Estates Ltd and Others v Dresdner Bank (1992) EA 17
  • Degeya Trading Stores (U) Ltd v Uganda Revenue Authority (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 16 of 1996)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Accross Africa Clearing & Forwarding Co. Ltd v Uganda Revenue Authority & Anor (HCT-00-CC-MA 3 of 2012) [2013] UGCommC 15 (29 January 2013)
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.