Wakilii

Degeya Trading Stores (U) Ltd v Uganda Revenue Authority (Civil Application No. 16 of 1996)

Court of Appeal · [1996] UGCA 7 · 1996 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to appeal against a High Court ruling setting aside a consent taxation order.
Decision
Leave to appeal granted; applicant ordered to file appeal within 14 days

Observed later treatment

Treatment recorded in citing cases followed in 6 Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

Good law Followed in 6 cases and applied in 0 cases, with no adverse treatment recorded. Citations rising — 52 citing cases on record, 26 in the most recent three data years. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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

On an application for leave to appeal, the Court of Appeal held that leave should be granted where the intended appeal has a reasonable chance of success or raises arguable grounds and the applicant is not guilty of dilatory conduct. The Court found that the intended appeal raised matters of law meriting consideration — including whether a High Court judge may set aside a consent taxation order entered by a taxing officer, the correct procedure for doing so, whether an advocate's instruction fee should be based on the subject matter or the decretal sum, and whether a court may award costs greater than the decretal sum. Leave to appeal was accordingly granted with costs to the applicant.

Outcome

Leave to appeal granted; applicant ordered to file appeal within 14 days

Facts

The applicant was the second defendant in High Court Civil Suit No. 938 of 1993, in which the respondent (Uganda Revenue Authority) was the first defendant and M/s Obadi Enterprises Ltd was the plaintiff. The suit concerned an alleged illegal seizure of goods. The applicant brought a counterclaim, succeeding against the respondent with costs but failing against the plaintiff. The applicant filed a bill of costs, and both counsel agreed the amount, which the Registrar recorded as a consent taxation order. The respondent's application to the Registrar to review the order was refused as a consent order. The respondent then applied to the High Court, which set aside the consent order on the ground that taxation had been based on the subject matter rather than the decretal sum and that costs were inflated, repeated and bogus, ordering a fresh bill. The applicant's oral application for leave to appeal was rejected, prompting this application for leave.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant satisfied the conditions for the grant of leave to appeal.
  2. Whether the intended appeal raised arguable points of law with a reasonable chance of success.

Orders

  • Application for leave to appeal allowed.
  • Applicant to file its appeal within 14 days.
  • Costs of the application to the applicant.

Rules and key headnotes

Appeals — Leave to Appeal — Conditions for Grant
Leave to appeal will be granted where the applicant shows either that the intended appeal has a reasonable chance of success or that there are arguable grounds of appeal, and the applicant has not been guilty of dilatory conduct.
Costs — Taxation — Setting Aside Consent Taxation Order
Whether a consent taxation order entered by a taxing officer may be set aside by a High Court judge, and the correct procedure for doing so, are arguable questions of law meriting determination on appeal.
Costs — Advocate's Instruction Fee — Basis of Assessment
Whether an advocate's instruction fee should be assessed on the value of the subject matter of the suit or on the decretal sum awarded, and whether a court may award costs greater than the decretal sum, are arguable points of law warranting appellate consideration.

Legislation cited (9)

  • Supreme Court Rules r.1(3)
  • Supreme Court Rules r.39(b)
  • Supreme Court Rules r.42
  • Supreme Court Rules r.43
  • Judicature Statute 1996 s.14
  • Civil Procedure Act s.84
  • Civil Procedure Act s.101
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.48
  • Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Rules Schedule 6 1(a)(4)

Cases cited (3)

  • Makula International v Cardinal Nsubuga (1982) HCB 11
  • Libyan Arab Bank v Adam Vassiliadis (Supreme Court Application No. 14 of 1991)
  • Brooke Bond v Mallya [1975] EA 266

Cases citing this judgment (30)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Degeya Trading Stores (U) Ltd v Uganda Revenue Authority (Civil Application No. 16 of 1996) [1996] UGCA 7 (13 December 1996)
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.