Parliamentary Commission v Byamugisha & Anor (Miscellaneous Application No. 219 of 2016)

Observed later treatment

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.

Holding

The High Court granted a stay of execution of its judgment directing the Parliamentary Commission to deduct and remit PAYE from Members of Parliament pending appeal. The court held that the decree took immediate effect and could be enforced through contempt proceedings, making the application for stay timely rather than premature. The court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act, finding that principles under Order 43 rule 4 regarding substantial loss and security for costs did not apply where the decree was a directive to perform a duty rather than a money judgment. The court held that the right of appeal should be preserved by maintaining the status quo to prevent the appeal from being rendered nugatory.

Outcome

Stay of execution granted pending appeal to the Court of Appeal

Facts

The first respondent, Francis Byamugisha, filed Civil Suit No. 745 of 2013 against the Attorney General, Parliamentary Commission, and Uganda Revenue Authority seeking declarations that they breached statutory duties by not withholding and remitting taxes from Members of Parliament. On 29 January 2016, Justice Adonyo delivered judgment directing the Parliamentary Commission to collect and remit PAYE taxes from MPs with immediate effect from the date of judgment. The court held that Uganda Revenue Authority had made an admission that such emoluments were taxable and that the Parliamentary Commission was responsible for withholding PAYE. The Parliamentary Commission filed a notice of appeal and applied for stay of execution. Uganda Revenue Authority subsequently sent a demand letter dated 3 March 2016 requiring the Parliamentary Commission to account for and remit the taxes. The Parliamentary Commission contended the appeal would be rendered nugatory if required to comply before the appeal was heard. The Income Tax Act required withheld taxes to be remitted within 15 days after the end of the month in which payment was made.

Issues

1. Whether the application for stay of execution is premature given that no execution proceedings had been commenced.
2. Whether the court has jurisdiction to grant a stay of its own decree pending appeal.
3. Whether the applicant demonstrated substantial loss that would be suffered if the stay is not granted.
4. Whether the applicant is in contempt of the court order in the underlying judgment.
5. Whether security for due performance of the decree should be required.
6. Whether the appeal has a likelihood of success.

Orders

• A stay of execution order issues staying the decree of the High Court dated 29 January 2016 pending the applicant's appeal to the Court of Appeal.
• Costs of the application shall abide the outcome of the appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (17)

• Judicature Act s.33
• Civil Procedure Act s.98
• Civil Procedure Act s.66
• Constitution of the Republic of Uganda art.126(2)
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 52 r.1
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 52 r.2
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 52 r.3
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 43 r.4
• Income Tax Act s.115
• Income Tax Act s.116
• Income Tax Act s.123
• Income Tax Act s.124
• Income Tax Act s.127
• Income Tax Act s.164
• Administration of Parliament Act s.2(1)
• Administration of Parliament Act s.15
• Income Tax (Withholding Tax) Regulations 2000 reg.3(1)

Cases cited (19)

• Sekikubo and Others v Attorney General (Constitutional Application No. 6 of 2013)
• Kyambogo University v Omolo Isaiah (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 341 of 2013)
• Gashumba Maniraguha v Nkudiye (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 24 of 2015)
• Gerardo v Alam and Sons [1971] EA 448
• NEC v Mukisa Foods (Court of Appeal Miscellaneous Application No. 7 of 1998)
• DFCU Bank v Lusejjere (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 29 of 2003)
• Commissioner of Customs, Uganda Revenue Authority v Kirenga Fred (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 90 of 2014)
• AON Uganda Ltd v Uganda Revenue Authority (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 66 of 2009)
• Uganda Projects Implementation & Management Centre v Uganda Revenue Authority (Supreme Court Constitutional Appeal No. 2 of 2009)
• Exclusive Estate Limited v Kenya Posts and Telecommunications Corporation [2005] 1 EA 53
• Mugenyi and Company Advocates v National Insurance Corporation (Civil Appeal No. 13 of 1984) [1992-1993] HCB 82
• Housing Finance Bank and Speedway Auctioneers v Musisi (Miscellaneous Application No. 158 of 2010)
• Re Overseas Aviation Engineering (GB) Ltd [1962] 3 All ER 12
• Knight v Clifton [1971] 2 All ER 380
• Heatons Transport (St Helens) Ltd v Transport and General Workers Union [1972] 3 All ER 101
• Starcomb v Trowbridge Urban District Council [1910] 2 Ch 190
• Micah v Walakira (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 9 of 1990)
• Somali Democratic Republic v Treon (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 11 of 1988)
• Wilson v Church (1879) 12 Ch D 454

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

• Pradip Enterprises Ltd & Anor v Buyaga Multiservices Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 1072 of 2016)

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