Wakilii

Cwezi Properties Limited v Entebbe Municipal Council (MISCELLANEOUS CAUSE NO.301 OF 2016) 2019 UGHCCD 42 (2019-02-08)

High Court · [2019] UGHCCD 42 Judicial Review Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for judicial review challenging assessment of trade licence fees
Decision
Orders of certiorari and prohibition granted; impugned assessments quashed; respondent directed to charge only UGX 150,000 per annum

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 granted judicial review, finding that Entebbe Municipal Council acted illegally and irrationally in charging the applicant UGX 2,400,000 per annum by treating each of 16 apartment units as separate businesses requiring individual licences. The court held that the Trade (Licensing) (Amendment of Schedule) Instrument 2011 Item 54 prescribes UGX 150,000 per annum for the business of apartments without distinguishing by number of units. The court quashed the impugned assessments and prohibited further inconsistent assessments.

Outcome

Orders of certiorari and prohibition granted; impugned assessments quashed; respondent directed to charge only UGX 150,000 per annum

Facts

Cwezi Properties Limited operates an apartment business in Entebbe Municipality under the name Cwezi Apartments, with 16 units in one building. Entebbe Municipal Council assessed the applicant for trade licence fees totalling UGX 2,400,000 per annum, charging UGX 150,000 per unit. The applicant contended this was excessive and ultra vires, arguing that the Trade (Licensing) (Amendment of Schedule) Instrument SI No. 54 of 2011 Item 54 prescribes UGX 150,000 per annum for the business of apartments at municipal level. The Municipal Council maintained that the fee applied per apartment unit, not per apartment block, and that 16 units multiplied by UGX 150,000 yielded the correct assessment of UGX 2,400,000. The applicant applied for judicial review seeking orders of certiorari and prohibition.

Issues

  1. Whether the respondent acted legally, rationally and properly in issuing General Demand Notes/Certificates of assessment against the applicant for licence fees in the amount of UGX 2,400,000 per annum contrary to the Trade (Licensing) (Amendment of Schedule) Instrument, SI No.2 of 2011.
  2. Whether the applicant is entitled to the reliefs sought.

Orders

  • An order of certiorari issued quashing the separate General Demand Notes/Certificates of assessment issued by the respondent against the applicant purporting to levy licence fees in the amount of UGX 2,400,000 per annum.
  • The applicant is to pay only UGX 150,000 per annum in accordance with the Trade (Licensing) (Amendment of Schedule) (No.2) of 2011.
  • An order of prohibition issued against the respondent prohibiting her from issuing any further General Demand Notes/Certificates of assessment against the applicant which are inconsistent with the Trade (Licensing) (Amendment of Schedule) (No.2) of 2011.
  • The application is allowed with costs to the applicant.

Rules and key headnotes

Judicial Review — Grounds for Review — Illegality — Ultra Vires Administrative Action
Where an administrative body exercises power outside the jurisdiction conferred by legislation, or in a manner inconsistent with the enabling statute, the decision is ultra vires and subject to judicial review on the ground of illegality.
Statutory Interpretation — Literal Rule — Plain Meaning of Words — Interpretation of Schedules and Fee Provisions
Where a statutory instrument sets a single licence fee for a category of business described in the plural without distinguishing by number of units or rooms, the fee applies to the business as a whole and not to each individual unit, unless the instrument expressly provides otherwise by categorisation as it does for comparable businesses in the same schedule.
Administrative Law — Local Government — Trade Licensing — Assessment of Licence Fees — Interpretation of Fee Schedules
A local authority may not reinterpret a statutory fee schedule to multiply a single prescribed fee by the number of units or sub-divisions within a business premises where the enabling instrument does not provide for such differentiation, even if comparable businesses are so differentiated in the same schedule.
Judicial Review — Grounds for Review — Irrationality and Unreasonableness — Wednesbury Unreasonableness
An administrative decision is irrational or unreasonable where it is so grossly unreasonable that no reasonable authority, addressing itself to the facts and law before it, would have made such a decision, being in defiance of logic and acceptable moral standards.
Judicial Review — Remedies — Certiorari and Prohibition — Discretionary Nature of Prerogative Orders
The grant of judicial review remedies including certiorari and prohibition remains discretionary and does not automatically follow from the existence of grounds for review; the court weighs various factors including the impact on good administration and third parties in determining whether to grant relief.
Judicial Review — Procedure — Leave Requirement — Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules 2009
The requirement for leave to apply for judicial review was removed from the Ugandan legal regime by the Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules 2009, which revoked the earlier Civil Procedure (Amendment) (Judicial Review) Rules 2003.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (8)

  • John Jet Tumwebaze v Makerere University Council & 2 Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 353 of 2005)
  • DOTT Services Ltd v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Cause No. 125 of 2009)
  • Balondemu David v The Law Development Centre (Miscellaneous Cause No. 61 of 2016)
  • Nazarali Punjwani v Kampala District Land Board & Anor (HCCS No. 07 of 2005)
  • R v Lord President of the Privy Council, ex parte Page [1993] AC 682
  • Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374
  • R v Aston University Senate ex parte Roffey [1969] 2 QB 558
  • R v Secretary of State for Health ex parte Furneaux [1994] 2 All ER 652

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Cwezi Properties Limited v Entebbe Municipal Council (MISCELLANEOUS CAUSE NO.301 OF 2016) 2019 UGHCCD 42 (2019-02-08)
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.