Wakilii

Radio One Limited T/a Radio One Kampala and 31 Others v Attorney General and Another (Originating Summons 3 of 2021)

High Court · [2024] UGHCCD 51 · 2024 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Originating Summons filed by media houses seeking declaration that trade licence fees levied by KCCA were unlawful and a refund of fees paid, following prior court rulings declaring similar levies ultra vires for other professional bodies already licensed under specific legislation
Decision
Plaintiffs granted full relief sought: declarations that trade licence levy was unlawful and order for refund of UGX 94,500,000 plus 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

The High Court held that Kampala Capital City Authority had no statutory mandate to levy trade licence fees on radio and television stations already licensed and regulated by the Uganda Communications Commission. The levy amounted to unlawful double taxation, was ultra vires, and created an illegal civil debt. The court ordered KCCA to refund UGX 94,500,000 to the plaintiffs, representing trade licence fees wrongly collected from 2017 to 2021, following precedent establishing that money paid pursuant to an ultra vires demand is recoverable as of right.

Outcome

Plaintiffs granted full relief sought: declarations that trade licence levy was unlawful and order for refund of UGX 94,500,000 plus costs

Facts

Radio One Limited and 31 other radio and television stations, suing through the Uganda Media Owners Association, challenged trade licence fees levied by Kampala Capital City Authority under the Trade (Licensing) (Amendment of Schedule) Instrument No. 2 of 2017. The plaintiffs, already licensed and regulated by the Uganda Communications Commission, paid trade licences totalling UGX 94,500,000 from 2017 to 2021. Between 2017 and 2019, the High Court declared in four separate cases that subjecting professional bodies already licensed under specific legislation to trade licence fees under SI No. 2 of 2017 was ultra vires and amounted to double taxation. In October 2022, the Minister of Trade wrote to the Attorney General stating that radio and television services should be excluded from the licensing regime, but no amendment was effected. The plaintiffs sought declarations that the levy was unlawful and a refund of all fees paid.

Issues

  1. Whether the 2nd defendant has statutory mandate to levy trade licence fees from the Plaintiffs in light of recent court decisions declaring similar levies for professional bodies already licensed under specific legislation to be ultra vires.
  2. Whether the provisions of the Trade (Licensing) (Amendment of Schedule) Instrument No. 2 of 2017 that purport to licence radio and television stations are illegal, ultra vires, oppressive, and amount to double taxation.
  3. Whether the Plaintiffs have a right to a refund of the sums they have paid for trade licences from 2017 to 2021.
  4. Whether the 2nd Defendant should refund the Plaintiffs operating within Kampala for the trade licences they have paid since 2017 until 2021.

Orders

  • A declaration is made that the 2nd Defendant had no statutory mandate to levy trade licence fees from the Plaintiffs.
  • A declaration is made that the Plaintiffs are entitled to a full refund of all the money levied against them by the 2nd Defendant as trade licence fees from the year 2017 to 2021.
  • The 2nd Defendant is ordered to refund to the Plaintiffs a sum of UGX 94,500,000 being the collective amount collected by the 2nd Defendant as trade licences.
  • Each of the Plaintiffs shall be paid the specific amount paid to the 2nd Defendant upon presentation of proof of payment.
  • The 2nd Defendants shall pay costs of this suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Administrative Law — Ultra Vires — Double Taxation — Levy on Entities Already Licensed Under Specific Legislation
Where a professional body or entity is already licensed and regulated under a specific Act of Parliament, subjecting that entity to trade licence fees under the Trade (Licensing) Act amounts to unlawful double taxation and is ultra vires the Minister's powers.
Administrative Law — Restitution — Recovery of Money Paid Pursuant to Ultra Vires Demand
Money paid by a citizen to a public authority in the form of taxes or other levy paid pursuant to an ultra vires demand by that authority is recoverable by the citizen as of right.
Administrative Law — Selective Application of Law — Duty to Rectify Ultra Vires Acts
Where a court has declared a statutory instrument provision ultra vires, a public authority's selective application of the law by continuing to enforce it against parties who have not yet sued while exempting those who have is abusive and exploitative conduct requiring judicial intervention.
Civil Procedure — Originating Summons — Appropriateness for Questions of Law and Statutory Construction
An originating summons is the appropriate procedure where the main point at issue is one of construction of a document or statute or is one of pure law, and there is unlikely to be any substantial dispute of fact requiring oral evidence.
Civil Procedure — Preliminary Objections — Judicial Discretion on Timing of Determination
A trial court has discretion to dispose of a preliminary objection either at or after the hearing, and the exercise of this discretion depends on the circumstances of each case.
Civil Procedure — Representative Suits — Application to Incorporated Entities
Where a suit is filed through an incorporated entity with legal personality capable of suing and being sued, Order 1 rule 8(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules governing representative suits does not apply.
Administrative Law — Special Damages — Proof of Amounts Wrongfully Collected by Public Authority
Where a public authority has wrongfully collected fees pursuant to an ultra vires instrument, special damages consisting of the amounts paid can be proved by documentary evidence such as trade licence certificates showing amounts paid, particularly where the defendant admits the error.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (14)

  • Uganda Telecom Ltd v Zte Corporation (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 03 of 2012)
  • Uganda Law Society v Kampala Capital City Authority and Attorney General (Miscellaneous Cause No. 243 of 2017)
  • Pharmaceutical Society of Uganda v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Cause No. 260 of 2019)
  • NIC Bank Uganda Ltd & 24 Others v Kampala Capital City Authority (Miscellaneous Cause No. 02 of 2018)
  • Uganda Cleaning Industry & Forwarding Association v Kampala Capital City Authority & Attorney General (Miscellaneous Cause No. 439 of 2017)
  • Kwesiga Monica v Commercial Bank of Africa (U) Ltd (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 1197 of 2021)
  • Kapeka Coffee Marketers Ltd v NPART (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2000)
  • Auto Garage and Others v Motokov (No 3) [1971] EA 514
  • Tororo Cement Co Ltd v Frokina International Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2001)
  • Col Dr Kiiza Besigye v Museveni Yoweri Kaguta (Election Petition No. 1 of 2001)
  • Woolwich Equitable Building Society v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [1993] AC 70
  • Mayambala Mustafa and 3 Others v Kampala Capital City Authority (Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2014)
  • Gapco (U) Ltd v AS Transporters (U) Ltd (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 18 of 2004)
  • Haji Asuman Mutekanga v Equator Growers (U) Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1995)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Radio One Limited T_a Radio One Kampala and 31 Others v Attorney General and Another (Originating Summons 3 of 2021) [2024] UGHCCD 51 (1 February 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.