Wakilii

Stanbic Bank (U) Limited & Another v The Commissioner General, Uganda Revenue Authority (Miscellaneous Application 42 of 2010)

High Court · [2011] UGCOMMC 2002 · 2011 Contempt Found — Fine Imposed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for determination of contempt of court arising from civil suit for declaration that tax assessment was illegal
Decision
Commissioner General found in contempt and ordered to pay fine of UGX 100 million to purge contempt. Application for exemplary damages refused but fine imposed under inherent jurisdiction.

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 5 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 5 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Citations steady — 4 citing cases on record, 3 in the most recent three data years. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 Commissioner General, Uganda Revenue Authority, acted in contempt of an interim stay order by demanding payment under an Agency Notice after being served with the court order restraining enforcement. The court corrected the misnomer substituting URA with the proper respondent, the Commissioner General. Held that punitive damages could not be awarded under Ugandan law for civil contempt arising from disobedience to an injunction, but a fine of UGX 100 million was imposed under the court's inherent powers to purge the contempt.

Outcome

Commissioner General found in contempt and ordered to pay fine of UGX 100 million to purge contempt. Application for exemplary damages refused but fine imposed under inherent jurisdiction.

Facts

Jacobsen Uganda Power Plant Company received a VAT assessment for UGX 17.6 billion. Jacobsen filed suit challenging the assessment as illegal and obtained an interim stay order on 18/12/2009 restraining the Commissioner General URA from enforcing collection measures, including an Agency Notice issued to Stanbic Bank on 15/12/2009 requiring payment from Jacobsen's accounts. Despite being served with the interim order on 21/12/2009, the Commissioner General wrote repeated letters to Stanbic demanding payment and threatening criminal prosecution of Stanbic's Managing Director. Under threat of prosecution, Stanbic paid over UGX 2.56 billion in protest on or about 13/01/2010. The applicants then filed for a determination whether the Commissioner General's conduct constituted contempt of the interim stay order.

Issues

  1. Whether the application was brought prematurely before issue of statutory notice, or whether it was brought against the wrong party
  2. Whether the respondent was in contempt of the interim stay order granted on 18/12/2009 in M/A 727 of 2009
  3. Whether the respondent ought to be castigated for contempt and ordered to pay exemplary/punitive damages

Orders

  • URA struck out as respondent and substituted with the Commissioner General, Uganda Revenue Authority
  • Commissioner General found to have acted in contempt of the interim stay order dated 18/12/2009
  • Commissioner General ordered to pay a fine of UGX 100,000,000 to the Registrar within 30 days to purge the contempt
  • Commissioner General to pay costs of the contempt application
  • Costs of the preliminary objection awarded to the Commissioner General

Rules and key headnotes

Contempt of Court — Disobedience to Interim Stay Order — Knowledge of Court Order
A party who knows of a court order, whether null or valid, regular or irregular, cannot be permitted to disobey it but must apply to the court to have it discharged if they believe it is wrong.
Misnomer of Parties — Power to Substitute Correct Party
Where a party is wrongly named in court proceedings due to clerical error, the court has power under Order 1 rule 10(2) CPR and section 99 CPA to substitute the correct party at any stage in order to enable effective adjudication.
VAT Act — Agency Notice — Requirement to Serve Copy on Taxpayer
Section 40(3) of the VAT Act requires the Commissioner General to forward a copy of an Agency Notice to the person liable to pay tax. Where this procedural requirement is not fulfilled, accusations of collusion between the agent and taxpayer lack legal or moral foundation.
Contempt of Court — Effect of Interim Stay Order on Statutory Agency Notice
An interim stay order restraining implementation and enforcement of an Agency Notice binds not only the Commissioner General but also her servants and agents. The stay maintains the status quo and prevents any further collection measures until the application for an injunction is heard.
Statutory Powers — Limits of Authority — Judicial Intervention
Though statutory authority to collect tax is conferred on the Commissioner General, such authority does not give the tax body superiority over judicial interventions. A statutory authority cannot disobey a court order on the basis that its statutory powers permit the action restrained.
Contempt of Court — Civil Contempt — Punishment by Fine
Civil contempt consisting of disobedience to a court order may be punished by fine under the court's inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process, even where exemplary damages cannot be awarded because the contempt claim was not properly pleaded in tort.
Exemplary Damages — Requirements for Award — Pleadings
A claim for exemplary damages must be specifically pleaded in the body of the plaint together with full particulars of facts relied on to support the claim, and not merely in the prayers. Such a claim must be made in addition to any other claim for damages.

Legislation cited (23)

Cases cited (20)

  • Wildlife Lodges v County Council of Narok [2005] EA 344
  • Rookes v Bernard [1964] 1 All ER 367
  • Commissioner General, Uganda Revenue Authority v Meera Enterprises (SCCA No. 22 of 2007)
  • Hadkinson v Hadkinson [1952] All ER 567
  • Pili Management Consultants v Commissioner of Income Tax [2010] KLR 67
  • Shah Jivraj Hiri & Sons v M K Gohil [1960] EA 922
  • American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] 2 WLR 316
  • Kakooza Mutale v Attorney General [2001-2005] HCB 110
  • Jennison v Baker [1972] 1 All ER 997
  • Chuck v. Cremer (1 Coop Temp Cott 342)
  • Savings & Investment Bank Ltd v Gasco Investments [1988] 1 All ER 975
  • Michael Lynn Kirkbride & Dolores Avoline Kirkbride (debtors) Case No. 08-00120-8-JRL (Unreported)
  • Esso Standard (U) Ltd v Semu Amanu Opio (SCCA No. 3 of 1993)
  • R K Kasule v Makerere University Kampala [1975] HCB 391
  • Obongo v Municipal Council of Kisumu [1971] EA 91
  • J R Rix & Sons v Owners of the Jarlinn [1965] 3 All ER 36
  • Director General of Fair Trading v Pioneer Concrete (UK) Ltd [1995] 1 All ER 135
  • Stancomb v Trowbridge Urban District Council [1910] 2 Ch 190
  • Steiner Products Ltd v Willy Steiner Ltd [1966] 2 All ER 127
  • Re Mileage Conference Group of Tyre Manufacturers [1966] 2 All ER 849

Cases citing this judgment (5)

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.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Stanbic Bank (U) Limited & Another v The Commissioner General, Uganda Revenue Authority (Miscellaneous Application 42 of 2010) [2011] UGCommC 2002 (22 September 2011)
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.