Wakilii

Akiphar Pharmaceuticals Ltd v The Commissioner General Customs Uganda Revenue Authority (Miscellaneous Application No. 1174 of 2016)

High Court · [2017] UGCOMMC 18 · 2017 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of a judgment under section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 46 of the Civil Procedure Rules on grounds of error apparent on the face of the record, arising from Civil Suit No. 336 of 2012.
Decision
Application granted. The award in the judgment of 19 August 2016 revised from special damages for 736 bags of sugar to UGX 190,047,000 being the difference between the claim and the auction proceeds, with interest.

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 High Court Commercial Division granted the application for review, finding that an error apparent on the face of the record existed. The court held that it was erroneous to award special damages for 736 bags of sugar when all 6990 bags had been sold. The judgment was reviewed and the award substituted with UGX 190,047,000 (the difference between the applicant's claim of UGX 800,000,000 and the sum realized from the auction of UGX 609,953,000), plus interest at 2% per month from November 2010 until full payment.

Outcome

Application granted. The award in the judgment of 19 August 2016 revised from special damages for 736 bags of sugar to UGX 190,047,000 being the difference between the claim and the auction proceeds, with interest.

Facts

Akiphar Pharmaceuticals imported 706 tons of sugar which were tagged for auction by Uganda Revenue Authority. Upon appeal, 356 tons were released and re-exported. However, URA unlawfully auctioned 6990 bags of sugar in breach of section 57(2) of the EACCMA 2004 by failing to give 30 days' notice and by selling 5990 bags by private treaty instead of public auction. URA realized UGX 609,953,000 from the sale and paid the Applicant UGX 130,880,462 after deducting taxes and charges. The Applicant filed Civil Suit No. 336 of 2012 claiming UGX 800,000,000. Judgment was delivered on 19 August 2016 awarding special damages for 736 bags of sugar being the difference between the total sold (6990) and those accounted for (6254). The Applicant sought review on the ground that the court found all 6990 bags were unlawfully sold and should have awarded damages based on the difference between the claim and auction proceeds rather than for 736 bags alone.

Issues

  1. Whether there exists an error or mistake apparent on the face of the record in the judgment of 19 August 2016 warranting review under section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 46 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. Whether the court erred in awarding special damages for the current market price of 736 bags of sugar when the court found that the Respondent had unlawfully auctioned 6990 bags of sugar.
  3. Whether the Applicant is estopped from claiming the full proceeds of the auction after acknowledging receipt of UGX 130,880,462 from the Respondent.

Orders

  • Application for review granted.
  • Judgment of 19 August 2016 reviewed and the award for the current market price of 736 bags of sugar set aside.
  • Award substituted with a sum of Uganda shillings 190,047,000 being the difference between the applicant's claim of Uganda shillings 800,000,000 and what the sugar was sold for at Uganda shillings 609,953,000.
  • The sum of Uganda shillings 190,047,000 shall carry interest at the URA statutory rate of 2% per month from November 2010 until payment in full.
  • Costs of the application awarded to the Applicant.
  • The rest of the awards in the judgment of 19 August 2016 remain as decreed.

Rules and key headnotes

Review of Judgments — Error Apparent on Face of Record — Calculation of Damages
Where a court finds that goods were unlawfully sold and awards special damages for only the unaccounted portion rather than the difference between the claim value and the actual sale proceeds, this constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review under section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 46 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Review Applications — Pendency of Appeal — Right to Apply for Review
A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may apply for review of the judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party, as provided under Order 46 Rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Estoppel — Ultra Vires Acts — Statutory Duties Cannot Be Overridden
The doctrine of estoppel cannot be pleaded as a bar overriding a statutory duty or obligation, and cannot prevail as an answer to a claim that an act done by a statutory body was ultra vires. Where a statutory body acts in breach of statutory provisions, estoppel does not prevent a party from claiming the full proceeds or damages even after acknowledging partial payment.
Special Damages — Calculation Where Goods Unlawfully Sold — Re-export Value
Where goods designated for re-export are unlawfully auctioned by a statutory authority, the correct measure of special damages is the difference between the re-export value claimed by the owner and the amount realized from the unauthorized sale, rather than damages for only the unaccounted portion of the goods.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (6)

  • Abdul Jafar Devji v All RMS Devji [1958] EA 558
  • FX Mubuuke v Uganda Electricity Board (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 98 of 2005)
  • Edison Kanyabwera v Pastori Tumwebaze (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2004) [2005] 2 EA 87
  • Harrison v Wells [1966] 3 All ER 524
  • Pride Exporters Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (High Court Civil Suit No. 563 of 2006)
  • Scarf v Jardine (1882) 7 AC 361

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Akiphar Pharmaceuticals Ltd v The Commissioner General Customs Uganda Revenue Authority (Miscellaneous Application No. 1174 of 2016) [2017] UGCommC 18 (10 March 2017)
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.