Wakilii

Fred Muwema v Uganda Revenue Authority and Another (Miscellaneous Application No 549 of 2018)

High Court · [2018] UGHCCD 293 · 2018 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for temporary injunction arising from civil suit challenging travel ban
Decision
Temporary injunction granted restraining implementation of travel ban pending determination of main suit

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

Held that the applicant satisfied the conditions for grant of a temporary injunction. The main suit raised serious questions of law and fact regarding the lawfulness of the travel ban and infringement of constitutional rights. Continued infringement of the applicant's constitutional right to practice his profession would cause irreparable damage not adequately compensable by damages. The respondent failed to establish reasonable grounds that the applicant intended to leave Uganda permanently as required by section 105 of the Income Tax Act. Balance of convenience favoured the applicant. Temporary injunction granted.

Outcome

Temporary injunction granted restraining implementation of travel ban pending determination of main suit

Facts

The 1st respondent issued a travel ban against the applicant alleging he owed UGX 4,314,906,176 as outstanding tax liability. The 2nd respondent implemented the ban. The applicant filed a main suit (HCCS No. 377 of 2018) challenging the lawfulness of the travel ban and alleging infringement of his constitutional rights under Articles 29(2) and 40(2). The applicant then filed this application seeking a temporary injunction restraining the respondents from implementing the travel ban pending determination of the main suit. The applicant contended that the travel ban prevented him from practicing his profession and trade, causing business loss. The respondents argued the application was res judicata in light of a Supreme Court judgment finding the applicant liable to refund the sum, and that the travel ban was lawfully imposed under section 105 of the Income Tax Act to compel payment.

Issues

  1. Whether a temporary injunction should issue restraining the respondents from implementing a travel ban against the applicant pending determination of the main suit.
  2. Whether the application was res judicata in light of a Supreme Court judgment.
  3. Whether the applicant satisfied the three conditions for grant of a temporary injunction: prima facie case, irreparable injury, and balance of convenience.

Orders

  • A temporary injunction issues restraining the respondents, their officials, servants and/or agents from implementing the travel ban on the applicant until determination of HCCS No. 377 of 2018.
  • Costs shall be in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunctions — Test for Grant
The granting of a temporary injunction is an exercise of judicial discretion and the court will consider three conditions: first, whether the applicant shows a prima facie case with a probability of success; secondly, whether the applicant might otherwise suffer irreparable injury which would not adequately be compensated by damages; and thirdly, if the court is in doubt, it will decide on the balance of convenience.
Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunctions — Prima Facie Case
To determine whether there is a prima facie case, courts must inquire whether there is a serious issue to be tried at trial. Where a main suit raises serious questions of law and fact regarding lawfulness of administrative action and infringement of constitutional rights, the condition of existence of a prima facie case is fulfilled.
Constitutional Rights — Right to Practice Profession — Irreparable Injury
Infringement of a constitutional right, including the right under Article 40(2) to practice one's profession and carry on any lawful occupation, trade or business, causes irreparable damage that cannot be properly atoned for through compensatory damages.
Tax Law — Travel Ban — Requirements under Income Tax Act s.105
Under section 105 of the Income Tax Act Cap 340, the Commissioner may issue a travel ban only where there are reasonable grounds to believe that a person may leave Uganda permanently without paying all tax due. The Commissioner must establish reasonable grounds that the person intends to leave permanently; absence of such grounds renders the travel ban unlawful.
Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunctions — Balance of Convenience
Balance of convenience literally means that if the risk of doing an injustice is going to make the applicant suffer, then the balance of convenience is favourable to the applicant and the court would most likely grant the temporary injunction. Where an applicant's trade has been restrained and the applicant is likely to suffer loss, the balance of convenience favours granting the injunction.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (4)

  • Kiyimba Kaggwa v Haji Abdu Nasser Katende [1985] HCB 43
  • Daniel Mukwaya v Administrator General (High Court Civil Suit No. 630 of 1993)
  • Tim Kabaza and 2 Others v Chatha Investments Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 745 of 2007)
  • Prof. Peter Anyang' Nyong'O and Others v Attorney General of Kenya and Others (East African Court of Justice Case Ref. No. 1 of 2006)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Fred Muwema v Uganda Revenue Authority and Another (Miscellaneous Application No 549 of 2018) [2018] UGHCCD 293 (6 February 2018)
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.