Wakilii

Eaton Towers Uganda Limited v Attorney General & Another (MISCELLANEOUS CAUSE NO. 84 OF 2019)

High Court · [2020] UGHCCD 46 · 2020 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for judicial review challenging delegated legislation and demand notes issued pursuant to statutory instrument
Decision
Application for judicial review granted; delegated legislation declared ultra vires and demand notes quashed

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 3 (treatment unverified) 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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 3 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Citations rising — 5 citing cases on record, 5 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

The High Court held that Item 88 of the Trade (Licensing) (Amendment of Schedule) Instrument No. 2 of 2017, requiring telecommunications masts to obtain trade licences from local government, is ultra vires the Trade (Licensing) Act and conflicts with the Uganda Communications Act. Where an entity is already licensed by a central government regulator under specific legislation, local government cannot impose trade licensing fees for the same activity. The court quashed the demand notes issued to Eaton Towers Uganda Limited and declared the applicant not liable to pay trade licence fees for its telecommunications masts.

Outcome

Application for judicial review granted; delegated legislation declared ultra vires and demand notes quashed

Facts

Eaton Towers Uganda Limited operates 27 telecommunications masts in Jinja, acquired from Airtel Uganda Limited. The company is licensed by Uganda Communications Commission under the Uganda Communications Act 2013 to operate public infrastructure services, for which it pays licensing fees to the central government. On 13th and 14th March 2019, Jinja Municipal Council issued demand notes requiring the applicant to pay trade licence fees totalling UGX 89,925,000 for the telecom masts pursuant to Item 88 (Part A) of the Trade (Licensing) (Amendment of Schedule) Instrument No. 2 of 2017. The applicant challenged the demand notes and the statutory instrument by way of judicial review, arguing that the instrument was ultra vires the parent Act, irrational, and that requiring a second licence for activity already licensed by the central government amounts to double collection of revenue. The respondent contended that local government is mandated to regulate business activity and that the applicant should contribute to local revenue for services rendered.

Issues

  1. Whether the application raises issues for judicial review.
  2. Whether Item 88 (Part A) of the Trade (Licensing) (Amendment of Schedule) S.I. No. 2 of 2017 is ultra vires the Trade (Licensing) Act Cap 101 as amended by the Trade (Licensing) (Amendment) Act No. 28 of 2015.
  3. Whether Item 88 (Part A) of the Trade (Licensing) (Amendment of Schedule) S.I. No. 2 of 2017 is irrational.
  4. Whether Item 88 (Part A) of the Trade (Licensing) (Amendment of Schedule) S.I. No. 2 of 2017 was lawful.
  5. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • The applicant is not liable to pay trade licence fees in respect of their telecommunication masts pursuant to Item 88 (Part A) of the Trade (Licensing) (Amendment of Schedule) Instrument No. 2 of 2017.
  • An order of certiorari issues to quash the 2nd respondent's demand note addressed to the applicant demanding for payment of trade license fees in respect of the applicant's telecommunication masts pursuant to Item 88 (Part A) of the Trade (Licensing) (Amendment Schedule) Instrument No. 2 of 2017.
  • The applicant is awarded costs of the application.

Rules and key headnotes

Judicial Review — Delegated Legislation — Ultra Vires Doctrine
A delegated legislation can be challenged by way of judicial review for being ultra vires on grounds including lack of legislative competence, violation of fundamental rights, failure to conform to the statute under which it is made or exceeding the limits of authority conferred by the parent Act, repugnancy to the laws of the land, or manifest arbitrariness, unreasonableness, vagueness or uncertainty.
Conflict of Laws — Specific Legislation vs General Legislation
Where two pieces of legislation conflict, the specific legislation overrides the general legislation on the subject matter. Applying the maxim Generalia specialibus non derogant, no later general Act can prevail over an earlier special Act dealing with the same subject matter.
Trade Licensing — Double Licensing — Central Government vs Local Government
Where an entity is licensed by a central government regulator under specific legislation, it is unlawful for local government to impose trade licensing fees for the same activity. The issuance of two licences for the same business, one by central government and another by local government, amounts to double collection of revenue that is unfair to the licensee and cannot be a rational manner of revenue collection.
Local Government Powers — Article 191 Constitution — Licensing Fees
Article 191 of the Constitution empowers local governments to levy fees on licensing only in relation to activities for which the local government is the licensing authority. It does not extend to charging licensing fees for activities already licensed by central government under specific legislation.
Delegated Legislation — Telecommunications Infrastructure — Trade Licensing
Telecommunications masts, being telecommunications infrastructure regulated and licensed by Uganda Communications Commission under the Uganda Communications Act, cannot be classified as a service for purposes of trade licensing by local government. A delegated legislation that includes telecommunications masts as an item upon which local government trade licensing can be levied is ultra vires the Trade (Licensing) Act and conflicts with specific telecommunications legislation.

Legislation cited (16)

Cases cited (8)

  • Uganda National Diary Traders Association v Diary Development Authority & Attorney General (HC Misc. Cause No. 113 of 2015)
  • Stanbic Bank of Uganda & 3 Others v Attorney General (HCMA No. 645 of 2011)
  • NC Bank Uganda Ltd & 24 Others v Kampala Capital City Authority & Attorney General (HC Misc. Cause No. 2 of 2018)
  • Stanbic Bank of Uganda Ltd & Others v Attorney General (HCT-00-CC-MA No. 0645 of 2011)
  • I.R.C v National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses [1981] 2 All ER 93
  • Re Liverpool Taxi Owners Association [1972] 2 All ER 589
  • In re Westminster City Council [1986] 1 AC 692
  • R v Secretary of State for Transport ex parte GLC [1985] 3 All ER 300

Cases citing this judgment (3)

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.

Eaton Towers Uganda Limited v Attorney General & Another (MISCELLANEOUS CAUSE NO. 84 OF 2019) [2020] UGHCCD 46 (14 April 2020)
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.