Wakilii

Marathon Electric Motors (I) Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (Misc Cause 13 of 2024)

High Court · [2024] UGCOMMC 324 · 2024 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application by notice of motion seeking order to approve re-exportation of goods
Decision
Application allowed with conditions requiring advertisement, payment of customs duty, and indemnity provision

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 High Court granted the application, directing the applicant to advertise the goods for 14 days, pay assessed customs duties, after which URA must approve re-exportation. The applicant must indemnify URA against third-party claims. The court found the applicant proved ownership of the goods through bills of lading showing the buyer as consignee, and URA had indicated willingness to release the goods subject to a court order.

Outcome

Application allowed with conditions requiring advertisement, payment of customs duty, and indemnity provision

Facts

Marathon Electric Motors, an Indian company, shipped electric motors worth 59 pallets in two containers from India through Mombasa to Uganda in February and March 2023 pursuant to a purchase order from Chemique Adhesives & Sealants Limited, a Ugandan buyer. The motors were to arrive by end of November 2022 but arrived later. When the goods reached Mombasa, the buyer stopped communicating and could not be traced. The goods remained at Mombasa port under control of Kenya and Uganda Revenue Authorities pending customs clearance. The applicant obtained approval from Kenya Revenue Authority to re-export but URA required a court order. URA opposed on grounds that the consignee (buyer) was not made a party and customs duties remained unpaid.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant is entitled to the reliefs sought, including approval for re-exportation of motors shipped from India but not collected by the Ugandan consignee.

Orders

  • The Applicant is directed to run an advertisement of the suit goods in the Newspaper for a period of 14 days.
  • The Respondent is directed to assess customs duty on the suit goods for payment by the Applicant.
  • The Respondent is directed to approve the re-exportation of the suit goods after the procedure in (1), and payment in (2) above.
  • The Respondent shall be indemnified by the Applicant in case of any third party claims in the suit goods.
  • Each party shall bear own costs of this application.

Rules and key headnotes

Customs Law — Re-exportation — Requirements under East African Community Customs Management Act
Goods imported into a Partner State and still under customs control may be re-exported, but the person re-exporting must comply with all necessary conditions and formalities as prescribed by the Commissioner including commercial policy measures under section 248 of the East African Community Customs Management Act 2004.
Burden of Proof — Establishing Title to Goods
An applicant seeking court orders concerning goods must adduce evidence to prove ownership or interest in the goods through documentary evidence such as bills of lading, purchase orders, and correspondence establishing the contractual relationship with the consignee.
Court's Inherent Powers — Remedial Orders for Ends of Justice
Where circumstances require intervention to prevent loss or dispose of commercial goods where a buyer has disappeared, the court may invoke its inherent powers under section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act to make orders necessary for the ends of justice, including conditional approval of re-exportation upon payment of customs duties and provision of indemnity.
Uncontroverted Facts in Affidavit Evidence
Where certain facts are sworn to in an affidavit and the opposing party does not deny them in reply, those facts are presumed to have been accepted by the opposing party.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (5)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Marathon Electric Motors (I) Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (Misc Cause 13 of 2024) [2024] UGCommC 324 (6 June 2024)
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.