Wakilii

Informer No. URA IAT STIL 08 07 v Commissioner General of Uganda Revenue Authority (Civil Appeal No. 194 of 2013)

Court of Appeal · [2015] UGCA 2038 · 2015 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from High Court judgment dismissing suit for unpaid informer reward
Decision
Appeal dismissed; High Court judgment upholding respondent's position affirmed

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 of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant informer received the full 10% reward to which he was entitled. The reward was calculated only on tax recovered for the period covered by the appellant's information (January 2004 to May 2007), excluding amounts from normal tax flow outside that period. The court found no binding agreement to wire payments to the UK, and held that the appellant's travel expenses were not recoverable as he travelled prematurely before payment was due.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; High Court judgment upholding respondent's position affirmed

Facts

The appellant provided information to Uganda Revenue Authority regarding PAYE tax evasion by Sterling Civil Engineering Ltd for January 2004 to May 2007. Following audit, unpaid tax of UGX 5,119,409,758 was discovered. After waiver of penal tax, the taxpayer entered a Memorandum of Understanding to pay UGX 2,702,970,875. The appellant claimed 10% reward on this amount. He received UGX 237,797,987 but claimed an additional UGX 43,451,449 was owed. The respondent argued that the MOU figure included UGX 255,079,830 from normal tax flow for June-October 2007 (outside the investigation period) and that interest was incorrectly calculated as compound rather than simple interest. The High Court dismissed the appellant's suit, finding he had received his full entitlement.

Issues

  1. Whether the money paid to the appellant upon recovery by the respondent was equivalent to 10% reward due to him.
  2. Whether the amount paid to the appellant was paid within the required period for payment.
  3. Whether the 14 post-dated Standard Chartered cheques issued by the tax defaulter to the respondent were duly presented for payment.
  4. Whether there was a legally binding agreement between the appellant and the respondent to wire payments to the appellant's account in the United Kingdom.
  5. Whether the appellant is entitled to damages for breach of contract.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Costs of the appeal awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Tax Law — Informer Rewards — Calculation Basis — Recovery versus Discovery
An informer's reward is calculated on tax actually recovered by the revenue authority, not on tax discovered through audit investigation.
Tax Law — Informer Rewards — Scope of Entitlement — Period of Investigation
An informer is entitled to reward only on tax recovered for the specific period covered by the information provided, and not on amounts arising from normal tax flow or self-assessment outside that period.
Contract Law — Formation — Binding Agreement — Mere Option versus Contractual Term
Where parties discuss a payment method as one option among others without reaching definitive agreement, such discussion does not constitute a binding contractual term.
Civil Procedure — Burden of Proof — Special Damages — Proof on Balance of Probabilities
A party claiming special damages must discharge the burden of proving on a balance of probabilities that the loss was actually incurred and was caused by the defendant's breach.
Civil Procedure — Appellate Review — First Appeal — Duty to Re-evaluate Evidence
A first appellate court has a duty to carefully and exhaustively re-evaluate the evidence as a whole and make its own decision on the facts, and may reverse findings of the trial judge where inferences drawn from facts are shown to be wrong.

Legislation cited (1)

  • Public Procurement and Disposal of Assets Act 2003

Cases cited (1)

  • Rwakashaija Azarious and Others v Uganda Revenue Authority (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 08 of 2009)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Informer No. URA IAT STIL 08 07 v Commissioner General of Uganda Revenue Authority (Civil Appeal No. 194 of 2013) [2015] UGCA 2038 (28 December 2015)
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.