Wakilii

Heritage Oil and Gas Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (Miscellaneous Application No 9 of 2017)

Tribunal · [2018] UGTAT 2 · 2018 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to strike out bills of costs filed by respondent in earlier Tax Appeals Tribunal applications
Decision
Application dismissed with costs to the respondent

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 Tribunal held that the application to strike out the respondent's bills of costs was res judicata. The question whether the respondent was entitled to instruction fees properly belonged to the subject matter of the costs claim in the earlier applications and could have been raised then. The applicant had the opportunity to object to the costs claim on the ground that the respondent was represented by salaried employees but failed to do so. Allowing a new proceeding on this issue would constitute an abuse of process. Application dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Application dismissed with costs to the respondent

Facts

Heritage Oil and Gas Limited filed Tax Appeals Tribunal applications No. 26 and 28 of 2010 to review a capital gains tax assessment by Uganda Revenue Authority. Both applications were dismissed with costs by the Tribunal. On 25 October 2017, prompted by the filing of bills of costs by the respondent, the applicant filed this application seeking orders that the bills of costs be struck out. The applicant argued that the respondent, having been represented by salaried employees rather than a firm of advocates, was not entitled to file bills of costs under the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations. The respondent contended that the application was res judicata and that the Tribunal was functus officio, having already determined the question of costs in the main applications.

Issues

  1. Whether the bills of costs filed by the respondent should be struck out on the ground that the respondent was represented by salaried employees rather than a firm of advocates.
  2. Whether the application is res judicata, the Tribunal having already determined the question of costs in the main applications.
  3. Whether the Tribunal is functus officio in respect of the costs award made in the main applications.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Res Judicata — Matters Which Ought to Have Been Raised in Former Suit
The doctrine of res judicata applies not only to points on which the court was actually required to form an opinion, but to every point which properly belonged to the subject of the litigation and which the parties exercising reasonable diligence might have brought forward at the time. A party cannot raise in a subsequent proceeding an issue that could and should have been raised in the original suit.
Civil Procedure — Costs — Objection to Entitlement Must Be Raised at Trial
Where a party claims costs and the opposing party knows or ought to know that the claimant is represented by salaried employees who may not be entitled to instruction fees, the opposing party must raise this objection during the hearing of the main application. Failure to do so bars a subsequent application to strike out the bill of costs on this ground, as the issue is res judicata.
Civil Procedure — Functus Officio — Tribunal Cannot Revisit Own Decision
Once a tribunal sits, hears a matter, and makes an award, it becomes functus officio. It cannot hear or determine a matter it has already decided and cannot act as a court of appeal to its own decision. The power to review a tribunal's decision lies with the High Court by way of appeal.
Administrative Law — Equal Protection — Government Entities Entitled to Costs
A government entity such as the Uganda Revenue Authority is equal before and under the law and entitled to all reliefs, including costs, which are available to any successful litigant. To hold that such an entity is not entitled to costs would deny it equal protection of the law as envisaged by Article 21 of the Constitution.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (3)

  • Total (Uganda) Ltd v Uganda Revenue Authority (Reference No. 26 of 2003)
  • The Commissioner General v Toyota Tanzania Tax Application 1/2003
  • Mulla the Code of Civil Procedure by Sir Dinshaw Fardunji Mulla 18th edition

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Heritage Oil and Gas Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (Miscellaneous Application No 9 of 2017) 2018 UGTAT 2 (9 March 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.