Wakilii

Greig and Another v Revenue Authority (Civil Appeal No. 15 of 1939)

East African Court of Appeal · [1939] EACA 54 · 1939 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from decision of the High Court of Uganda upholding the Revenue Authority's imposition of penalty for unstamped documents
Decision
Appeal dismissed; penalty of Sh. 400 upheld

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 Court held that while section 17 of the Stamp Ordinance permits documents executed outside the Protectorate to be stamped within three months of receipt, when such unstamped documents are produced before a public officer, that officer must impound them under section 33. The penalty imposed by the Revenue Authority was within its discretion under section 40(1)(b), which permits penalties up to ten times the stamp duty evaded. The appellants' proper remedy for refund was to apply to the Revenue Authority under section 45, not to seek a stated case under section 58.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; penalty of Sh. 400 upheld

Facts

Messrs. Delany & Stratton, advocates in Nairobi, Kenya, forwarded unstamped memorandum and articles of association of the Uganda Cold Storage Company Limited to the Registrar of Companies in Uganda for registration, along with filing and registration fees. The documents had been executed outside the Protectorate. The Registrar impounded the unstamped documents under section 33(1) of the Stamp Ordinance and forwarded them to the Revenue Authority under section 38(2). The Revenue Authority determined the documents were chargeable with Sh. 80 in stamp duty and imposed a penalty of Sh. 400, being half the maximum penalty of ten times the duty evaded. Hunter & Greig, as local representatives of the company, paid the penalty as a deposit without admission of liability and requested a stated case under section 58. The High Court upheld the Revenue Authority's decision.

Issues

  1. Whether any penalty was incurred by presenting unstamped memorandum and articles of association for registration when section 17 of the Stamp Ordinance permits stamping within three months of receipt in the Protectorate.
  2. Whether section 40 of the Stamp Ordinance authorizes the Revenue Authority to charge more than Sh. 10 by way of penalty.
  3. Whether the penalty of Sh. 400 was unjustifiable in the circumstances of this case.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Stamp Duty — Impounding of Unstamped Documents — Interaction of Sections 17 and 33
Where section 17 of the Stamp Ordinance permits documents executed outside the Protectorate to be stamped within three months of receipt, this permissive provision does not override the mandatory duty under section 33 requiring public officers to impound unstamped documents produced before them in the performance of their functions.
Mandatory versus Permissive Provisions — Section 35 and Section 17
Section 35 of the Stamp Ordinance, which prohibits registration of instruments not duly stamped, is mandatory and cannot be modified by the permissive provisions of section 17 allowing stamping within three months of receipt in the Protectorate.
Discretion of Revenue Authority — Penalty Assessment
Section 40(1)(b) of the Stamp Ordinance confers discretion on the Revenue Authority to impose a penalty ranging from Sh. 10 to ten times the amount of stamp duty evaded, and the court will not interfere with the exercise of that discretion unless it is shown to have been improperly exercised.
Remedies — Application for Refund under Section 45
Where a person has paid a penalty imposed by the Revenue Authority and seeks relief, the proper remedy is to apply to the Revenue Authority for refund under section 45 of the Stamp Ordinance in the first instance, rather than seeking a stated case under section 58.

Legislation cited (10)

  • Uganda Stamp Ordinance (Cap. 161) s.16
  • Uganda Stamp Ordinance (Cap. 161) s.17
  • Uganda Stamp Ordinance (Cap. 161) s.33
  • Uganda Stamp Ordinance (Cap. 161) s.35
  • Uganda Stamp Ordinance (Cap. 161) s.38(2)
  • Uganda Stamp Ordinance (Cap. 161) s.40(1)(b)
  • Uganda Stamp Ordinance (Cap. 161) s.41
  • Uganda Stamp Ordinance (Cap. 161) s.45
  • Uganda Stamp Ordinance (Cap. 161) s.58
  • Companies Ordinance s.14

Cases cited (2)

  • Hunter & Greig v Revenue Authority (Civil Appeal No. 12 of 1938)
  • Johnson v The King [1904] AC 817

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Greig and Another v Revenue Authority (Civil Appeal No. 15 of 1939) [1939] EACA 54 (1 January 1939)
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.