Dembe Trading Enterprises Limited v Birungyi Kagyenda (Civil Appeal 128 of 2015)

Observed later treatment

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.

Holding

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial Judge properly applied the civil standard of proof and correctly found that an 8% remuneration agreement was established by the parties' conduct, the appellant having sent work to the respondent without contesting his proposed fee. The respondent had completed the assignment of reducing the tax liability, and a separate consultancy firm engaged later related to a different period. The matter was a commercial dispute attracting interest under the Civil Procedure Act and Judicature Act. The award of 21% interest was upheld by the majority; one judge dissented, favouring reduction to 14%.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; High Court judgment for the respondent (special damages of UGX 358,383,759.84, interest at 21% per annum and 2/3 of taxed costs) upheld

Facts

In 2008 and early 2009 the respondent, a tax consultant, was orally instructed by the appellant company to provide tax consultancy services aimed at reducing the appellant's tax assessment with Uganda Revenue Authority. The respondent contended that the agreed fee was 8% of the difference between the original presumptive assessment of UGX 6,292,628,960 and the final assessment. After the respondent's work, URA agreed a final assessment of UGX 705,665,962. The appellant paid UGX 89,000,000 as fees but disputed the balance claimed. The appellant argued the respondent had abandoned the assignment in April 2009 and that another firm, M/s T&B Tax Consultants, completed the work at a cost of UGX 31,000,000. Correspondence showed the respondent continued working beyond April 2009, with the final tax position reached before T&B was engaged for a different period (2008-2010). The respondent had proposed the 8% fee by letter of 1 October 2008, which the appellant did not contest before sending further work.

Issues

1. Whether the trial Judge properly evaluated the evidence and correctly found that remuneration had been agreed at 8% of the tax reduction.
2. Whether the trial Judge correctly applied the burden and standard of proof in a civil claim.
3. Whether the trial Judge erred in awarding interest at 21% per annum where interest had not been agreed and the matter was alleged not to be a commercial dispute.

Orders

• Appeal dismissed.
• Judgment and orders of the trial Judge upheld.
• Costs awarded to the respondent in the Court of Appeal and in the court below.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (8)

• Evidence Act Cap 6 s.101(1)
• Civil Procedure Act Cap 71 s.26
• Judicature Act s.33
• Constitution (Commercial Court) (Practice) Directions reg.4(1)
• Advocates Act Cap 267 s.48
• Advocates Act Cap 267 s.1
• Court of Appeal Rules r.30(1)
• Civil Procedure Rules O.13 r.6

Cases cited (7)

• Brogden v Metropolitan Railway Company (1876-77) LR 2 App Cas 665
• Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1893] 1 QB 256
• Nsubuga a Kanruma (1978) HCB 307
• Bradshaw V McBrayan's Pty Ltd (1959) 101 C.L.R 298 at 305
• Constantino Okwel alias Magendo v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 1990)
• JK Patel v Spear Motors Limited (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1991)
• Riches v Westminster Bank Ltd [1947] 1 All ER 469

Cases citing this judgment (1)

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.

• Nakalanzi Rashidah and Others v Finicon Group (U) Limited (Civil Suit No. 79 of 2020)

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