Wakilii

kiyumba emile v uganda revenue authority (Misc Cause No.49 of 2013)

High Court · [2014] UGHCCD 33 · 2014 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application by Notice of Motion for release of seized goods in transit
Decision
Goods ordered released to the applicant for re-export to Mombasa

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 goods in transit are not subject to customs control in Uganda. Where the Commissioner fails within two months either to require the claimant to institute proceedings or to institute proceedings himself, seized goods shall be released to the claimant. The applicant proved ownership of 832 pieces of ivory lawfully in transit from the Democratic Republic of Congo to Mombasa through Uganda. The goods were declared at Bunagana Customs Border Post. The respondent failed to rebut this evidence or to adduce records from Bunagana contradicting the applicant's contention. Application granted and goods ordered released for re-export.

Outcome

Goods ordered released to the applicant for re-export to Mombasa

Facts

The applicant, a licenced owner of 832 pieces of ivory exported from Goma, North Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo, transited the cargo through Bunagana Border Post into Uganda en route to Mombasa, Kenya, aboard Motor Vehicle Reg. No. CGO 6816AB19. The applicant appointed transport agents to transit the cargo, who without his knowledge secured other means of transport from Ken Freight Forwarders and a different container from Ocean Freight (East Africa) Ltd in Bweyogerere. The cargo was retained by the respondent's officers. The applicant held a valid licence and certificate authorising him to collect trophies and culled animals up to 4000 kilograms of ivory from certain areas in Congo DRC outside national parks and game reserves. The applicant submitted his claim for the cargo but the respondent refused to release it. Lillian Babirye, sales manager of Ocean Freight (East Africa) Ltd, suspected theft of containers and alerted the respondent, who brought a customs enforcement team and police. The goods were placed in the respondent's customs warehouse for safe custody. No seizure notice was issued and no criminal charges were preferred against the applicant.

Issues

  1. Whether the continued seizure of the applicant's cargo is lawful.
  2. Whether the applicant is entitled to the remedies sought.

Orders

  • Immediate release of the transit cargo, 832 pieces of ivory, now lying at Nakawa ICD to the applicant Kayumba Emile Ogane.
  • The respondent to re-export the same out of Uganda as it was on transit.
  • The Uganda Police Force and Uganda Wildlife Authority and all other authorities to give effect to the release order.
  • Each party to meet their own costs as the goods in question are in transit.

Rules and key headnotes

Customs Law — Goods in Transit — Legal Status
Goods in transit are not subject to customs control in Uganda where they originate from outside Uganda and are destined for a third country, provided they are duly re-exported within the time and subject to conditions specified by the Commissioner.
Customs Law — Seizure of Goods — Release Procedure — Section 216(2) EACCMA
Where the Commissioner fails within two months either to require the claimant to institute proceedings or to institute proceedings himself in accordance with the East African Community Customs Management Act, seized goods shall be released to the claimant.
Customs Law — Burden of Proof — Declaration at Customs
Where an applicant contends that goods were declared to customs officials at a border post and the respondent has full control of the records at that customs entry post but does not produce records to refute that contention, the onus of disproving the fact that goods were customed has not been discharged by the respondent.
Customs Law — Goods in Transit — Concealment — Interpretation
Concealment of goods in reference to the material used to secure the identity of cargo from the naked eye of robbers does not constitute concealment in the context of customs law where the goods are not concealed from customs officials and are declared at the appropriate border post.
Agency — Power of Attorney — Effect of Legal Grant
Once a power of attorney is legally granted to an authorised agent, it cannot be said that the same legally granted power of attorney was intended to hide the principal from the hands of criminal law, particularly where no criminal charges have been preferred against the principal.

Legislation cited (16)

Cases cited (3)

  • Makula International Ltd v Cardinal Nsubuga and Another (1982) HCB 11
  • Sebuliba v Cooperative Bank (1982) HCB 129
  • Uganda Revenue Authority v Congo Tobacco Ltd (HCT-00-CC-CA-03-2006)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

kiyumba emile v uganda revenue authority (Misc Cause No.49 of 2013) [2014] UGHCCD 33 (24 February 2014)
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.