Wakilii

Kasampa Kalifani v Uganda Revenue Authority (HCT-00-CV-CS-0579-2007)

High Court · [2009] UGHC 130 · 2009 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for outstanding informer's fees
Decision
Plaintiff awarded outstanding informer's fees with interest and costs

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 an informer is entitled to 10% of the total amount recovered by Uganda Revenue Authority, including interest assessed on tax arrears. Under section 136(6) of the Income Tax Act, interest charged on unpaid tax is collected and recovered as if it were tax due. Section 21 of the Finance Act (No. 1 of 1999) must be interpreted purposively to include all monies recovered following information supplied. Interest cannot be divorced from the principal for purposes of calculating the informer's reward.

Outcome

Plaintiff awarded outstanding informer's fees with interest and costs

Facts

The plaintiff provided information to Uganda Revenue Authority regarding under-declaration of tax by Tororo Cement Industries Ltd. URA recovered Shs.4,072,453,800/= comprising withholding tax and interest of Shs.2,147,593,800/=. The plaintiff was paid Shs.199,910,000/= as informer's reward. He claimed an additional Shs.207,335,380/=, being the balance to reach 10% of the total amount recovered. URA contended that the 10% should be calculated only on the principal tax, excluding the interest component. No evidence was adduced; the matter was treated as a point of law resolved through written submissions.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to 10% of the whole amount recovered, including interest.
  2. What remedies are available to the plaintiff.

Orders

  • Judgment for the plaintiff.
  • Defendant to pay the plaintiff Shs.207,335,380/= being the outstanding balance of informer's fees.
  • Interest on the outstanding amount awarded at court rate per annum from the date the initial payment of Shs.199,910,000/= was made until payment in full.
  • No general damages awarded.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Tax Law — Informer's Reward — Calculation Basis — Interest Component
Under section 21 of the Finance Act (No. 1 of 1999), an informer is entitled to 10% of the total tax recovered following information supplied, including interest assessed on tax arrears, as section 136(6) of the Income Tax Act provides that interest charged on unpaid tax is collected and recovered as if it were tax due.
Statutory Interpretation — Purposive Approach — Recovery Provisions
A recovery provision such as section 21 of the Finance Act (No. 1 of 1999) must be construed according to its object and intent, which is to facilitate recovery of taxes by procuring information from whistle blowers at a cost of 10% of the sums recovered, without distinguishing between principal tax and interest for purposes of calculating the reward.
Tax Law — Penal Tax and Interest — Treatment as Tax
Once interest or penal tax has been assessed on tax arrears under the Income Tax Act, it becomes tax which is collected and recovered as tax; there is no distinction in the Act between the treatment accorded to additional or penal tax and any other tax.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (3)

  • John Musisi v Commissioner General, Uganda Revenue Authority (HCCS No. 0072 of 2005)
  • Engineering Industry Training Board vs Samuel Talbot [1969] 1 ALL E.R. 480
  • Income Tax Commissioner vs Roshanali Nazerally Merali & Anor [1964] E.A. 95

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kasampa Kalifani v Uganda Revenue Authority (HCT-00-CV-CS-0579-2007) [2009] UGHC 130 (10 August 2009)
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.