Wakilii

Mabirizi Kiwanuka v Uganda Revenue Authority (Misc Cause 84 of 2021)

High Court · [2022] UGCOMMC 128 · 2022 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for judicial review of administrative decisions by Uganda Revenue Authority
Decision
Application for judicial review dismissed on preliminary objections

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 dismissed the application for judicial review on four grounds: the application was time-barred, having been filed more than nine months after the impugned decision; a consent order entered by the High Court cannot be subject to judicial review by the same court; the applicant failed to exhaust available administrative remedies under the Access to Information Act and East African Community Court of Justice Rules; and the applicant lacked locus standi as he had no direct or sufficient interest in the tax affairs of third parties.

Outcome

Application for judicial review dismissed on preliminary objections

Facts

The applicant sought judicial review of two decisions by Uganda Revenue Authority: first, the Commissioner General's decision to compromise High Court Civil Appeal No. 31 of 2020 by entering a consent withdrawal acknowledging shs. 5,108,848,944/= as due from a taxpayer, thereby vacating a Tax Appeals Tribunal award of shs. 20,053,441,670/=; second, the Commissioner of Legal Services' refusal to provide certified copies of documents relating to the Commissioner General's appointment and termination that the applicant intended to use in the East African Court of Justice. The consent order was signed on 20 January 2021 and filed on 1 February 2021. The applicant filed the judicial review application on 15 November 2021, claiming he only learned of the facts on 9 November 2021. The court raised the issue of limitation sua sponte.

Issues

  1. Whether the application for judicial review was filed within the three-month limitation period prescribed by rule 5(1) of the Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules 2009.
  2. Whether a consent order entered by the High Court is amenable to judicial review.
  3. Whether the applicant exhausted available administrative remedies before seeking judicial review.
  4. Whether the applicant has locus standi (sufficient interest) to bring the application for judicial review.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Judicial Review — Limitation Period — Commencement of Time
Time for filing an application for judicial review begins to run from the date when the grounds of the application first arose, not from the date when the applicant learned of the decision or considered that they had adequate information to bring the claim.
Judicial Review — Amenability — Consent Orders of Superior Courts
A consent judgment or order entered by the High Court cannot be quashed or set aside by way of judicial review, since judicial review is a specialised remedy by which the High Court exercises supervisory jurisdiction over only inferior courts, tribunals or other public bodies, and not itself.
Administrative Law — Exhaustion of Remedies — Discretion to Entertain Judicial Review
The court is reluctant to invoke its discretionary powers of judicial review where alternative and effective statutory remedies exist and have not been exhausted by the applicant, unless the circumstances require immediate intervention or the pursuit of the alternative remedy would be futile or ineffective.
Judicial Review — Locus Standi — Tax Matters — Sufficient Interest
One taxpayer has no sufficient interest in asking the court to investigate the tax affairs of another taxpayer or to complain that the latter has been under-assessed or over-assessed; there is a strong public interest that he should not, and this principle applies equally to groups of taxpayers.
Administrative Law — Locus Standi — Direct Interest versus Sufficient Interest
To establish direct interest for judicial review, an applicant must demonstrate that the action will affect interests such as personal liberty, money, property, benefits or legitimate expectation of benefits in circumstances which make the applicant, as opposed to others, individually concerned.
Tax Law — Revenue Authority Powers — Managerial Discretion — Compromise of Tax Liabilities
The Uganda Revenue Authority has a wide managerial discretion as to the best means of obtaining for the national exchequer the highest net return practicable, including the power to compromise tax liabilities and enter into agreements with taxpayers, provided such decisions are made for reasons of good management and not for extraneous or ulterior reasons.
Civil Procedure — Consent Judgments — Setting Aside — Grounds
A consent judgment can be set aside only if it was given without sufficient material facts, in misapprehension or ignorance of material facts, or for a reason which would enable the court to set aside an agreement, such as fraud, mistake, collusion, or contravention of court policy; the grounds for judicial review (illegality, irrationality, unreasonableness) are not grounds for setting aside a consent judgment.

Legislation cited (13)

Cases cited (65)

  • Kuluo Joseph Andrew and two others v Attorney General and six others (Misc Cause No. 106 of 2010)
  • Jobsin Co UK Plc v Department of Health [2001] EWCA Civ 1241
  • R v Secretary of State for Health ex parte Furneaux [1994] 2 All ER 652
  • O'Reilly v Mackman [1983] 2 AC 237
  • R v Dairy Produce Quota Tribunal for England and Wales ex parte Caswell [1990] 2 AC 738
  • Dawson Kadope v Uganda Revenue Authority (Consolidated Misc Cause No. 40 of 2019)
  • R v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry ex parte Greenpeace Ltd [1998] Env LR 415
  • R (Sustainable Development Capital LLP) v Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy [2017] EWHC 771 (Admin)
  • R v London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham ex parte Burkett [2002] 1 WLR 1593
  • R v Secretary of State for Transport ex parte Presvac [1992] 4 Admin LR 121
  • Galina Heaney v an Bord Pleanála [2021] IEHC 201
  • R (Crompton) v South Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner [2018] 1 WLR 131
  • Zoan v Rouamba [2000] 1 WLR 1509
  • Dodds v Walker [1981] 1 WLR 1027
  • Simon Sembaga v Uganda Revenue Authority (Misc Cause No. 301 of 2019)
  • R v Secretary of State for the Environment ex parte Hammersmith & Fulham LBC [1991] 1 AC 52
  • Anny Katabaazi-Bwengye v Uganda Christian University (Misc Cause No. 268 of 2017)
  • R v Panel on Takeovers and Mergers ex parte Datafin plc [1987] QB 815
  • Julliane Sansa Otim v Makerere University (Misc Cause No. 258 of 2016)
  • Elizabeth Kaase Bwanga v Makerere University and three others (Misc Cause No. 205 of 2018)
  • Gentiruco AG v Firestone SA (Pty) Ltd (1972) 1 SA 589 (A)
  • Vereniging van Bo-Grondse Mynamptenare van SA v President of the Industrial Court (1983) 1 SA 1143 (T)
  • Ex parte Scott (1909) 26 SC 520
  • SA Technical Officials' Association v President of the Industrial Court 1985 1 SA 597 (A)
  • Brooke Bond Liebeg (T) Ltd v Mallya [1975] EA 266
  • Babigumira John and others v Hoima Council [2001-2005] HCB 116
  • Pavement Civil Works Ltd v Andrew Kirungi (Misc Application No. 292 of 2002)
  • Hirani v Kassam (1952) 19 EACA 131
  • Ken Group of Companies Ltd v Standard Chartered Bank and two others (Misc Application No. 116 of 2012)
  • Water and Environment Network (U) Limited and two others v National Environmental Management Authority and another (Consolidated Misc Cause No. 239 of 2020)
  • R v Inland Revenue Commissioners ex parte National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses [1982] AC 617
  • R v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs ex parte World Development Movement Ltd [1995] 1 WLR 386
  • JS v Secretary of State [2021] EWHC 234 (Admin)
  • R (Feakins) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs [2003] EWCA Civ 1546
  • Re Liverpool Taxi Owners' Association [1972] 2 All ER 589
  • President of Malawi and Another v Kachere and others (Civil Appeal No. 20 of 1995)
  • SP Gupta v President of India and others AIR 1982 SC 149
  • Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh (Railway) v Union of India and others AIR 1981 SC 298
  • R (McCourt) v Parole Board [2020] EWHC 2320 (Admin)
  • R v Leicestershire County Council ex parte Blackfordby & Boothorpe Action Group Ltd [2001] Env LR 2
  • R v Inland Revenue Commissioners ex parte National Federation of Self-employed and Small Businesses Ltd [1982] AC 617
  • R (Kides) v South Cambridgeshire District Council [2002] EWCA Civ 1370
  • Aboneka Michael and another v Attorney General (Misc Cause No. 386 of 2018)
  • Muwanga Kivumbi v Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 6 of 2011)
  • Canada (Attorney General) v Downtown Eastside Sex Workers United Against Violence Society [2012] 2 SCR 524
  • Attorney General of British Columbia v Council of Canadians with Disabilities 2020 BCCA 241
  • R v Income Tax Special Commissioners (1888) 21 QB 313
  • Income Tax Special Commissioners v Linsleys (Established 1894) Ltd [1958] AC 569
  • Inland Revenue Commissioners v Nuttall [1990] STC 194
  • Arsenal Football Club Ltd v Ende [1979] AC 1
  • Inland Revenue Commissioners v National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses Ltd [1981] 2 All ER 93
  • R v Thames Magistrates' Court ex parte Greenbaum (1957) 55 LGR 129
  • R v Guardians of Lewisham Union [1897] 1 QB 498
  • R v Russell [1969] 1 QB 342
  • Ex parte Stott [1916] 1 KB 7
  • R v Customs and Excise Commissioners ex parte Cooke and Stevenson [1970] 1 WLR 450
  • R v Cotham [1898] 1 QB 802
  • AXA General Insurance Ltd v Lord Advocate [2011] UKSC 46
  • R v HM Inspectorate of Pollution ex parte Greenpeace (No 2) [1994] 4 All ER 329
  • R v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs ex parte World Development Movement Ltd [1995] 1 WLR 386
  • R v Inland Revenue Commissioners ex parte National Federation of Self Employed and Small Businesses Ltd [1982] AC 617
  • R v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs ex parte World Development Movement Ltd [1995] 1 WLR 386
  • SP Gupta v President of India and others AIR 1982 SC 149
  • R v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs ex parte Lord Rees-Mogg [1994] QB 552
  • R v Guardians of Lewisham Union [1897] 1 QB 498

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mabirizi Kiwanuka v Uganda Revenue Authority (Misc Cause 84 of 2021) [2022] UGCommC 128 (10 June 2022)
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.