Wakilii

Stephens N. Mabosi v Uganda Revenue Authority (Civil Suit No. 699 of 1993)

High Court · [1995] UGHC 70 · 1995 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for special damages arising from seizure and alleged misappropriation of goods
Decision
Plaintiff's claim allowed; special damages of UGX 22,708,000 awarded with interest at 40% per annum from 22 February 1993 and costs

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (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 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. 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 court held that where goods are seized and no opportunity is given to the plaintiff to take inventory, and records are also removed, the burden of proof shifts to the defendant to prove quantity taken. Oral evidence cannot contradict official seizure notices under section 91 of the Evidence Act. The plaintiff proved on balance of probabilities that 405½ boxes of engine oil were not returned after lawful seizure, entitling him to special damages.

Outcome

Plaintiff's claim allowed; special damages of UGX 22,708,000 awarded with interest at 40% per annum from 22 February 1993 and costs

Facts

The plaintiff operated a small business selling petroleum products at 16th Market Street, Kampala. On 17 November, in the plaintiff's absence, servants of the defendant Uganda Revenue Authority raided his premises and removed goods (lubricants and engine oils) on grounds they were uncustomed. A seizure notice was issued showing 571 five-litre jerricans of lubricant, 500 boxes of half-litre engine oil, 11 tins of grease, and 2 sacks of half-litre engine oil. After the plaintiff paid taxes of UGX 7,393,349 and fines of UGX 1,238,765, some goods were released, but the delivery note showed only 94½ boxes of half-litre oil were returned instead of 500 boxes seized. The plaintiff claimed UGX 22,708,000 for the 405½ boxes not returned.

Issues

  1. What quantity of goods of the plaintiff was seized by the defendant?
  2. Whether all the goods of the plaintiff seized were duly returned to the plaintiff after due payment of taxes?
  3. What remedies if any are available to the plaintiff?

Orders

  • Plaintiff awarded special damages of UGX 22,708,000 being the value of 405½ boxes of half litre engine oil misappropriated by the defendant's servants.
  • No award for general damages as they were not pleaded in the plaint.
  • Plaintiff awarded interest on the decretal sum at 40% per annum from 22 February 1993 until payment in full.
  • Plaintiff awarded costs of the suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Documentary Evidence — Proof of Contents — Prohibition of Oral Evidence to Contradict Written Documents
Under section 91 of the Evidence Act, oral evidence cannot be adduced to contradict the contents of a written document; the document itself proves its contents.
Burden of Proof — Shifting of Burden — Seizure of Goods Without Inventory Opportunity
Where goods are seized and removed without giving the owner an opportunity to take inventory, and the records showing stock are also taken away, the burden of proof shifts to the seizing party to prove how much stock was taken.
Pleadings — Necessity to Plead All Relief Sought — General Damages
A matter which was not pleaded cannot be raised at trial and no evidence should be adduced to prove it; pleadings must state facts that put the other party on guard as to what to meet at trial, and a plaintiff who fails to plead general damages cannot recover them even if inconvenience and suffering are proved.
Seizure of Goods — Duty of Revenue Authority — Accountability for Seized Property
Where a revenue authority seizes goods on grounds of suspected uncustomed status and issues an official seizure notice, it is bound to account for the quantity seized as stated in that notice; discrepancies between goods seized and goods returned after payment of taxes constitute misappropriation.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (2)

  • Noah Hambowa and Others v Lint Marketing Board (High Court Civil Suit No. 406 of 1990)
  • Ward v Barclays Parkinson (U) Ltd [1959] AER 287

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.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Stephens N. Mabosi v Uganda Revenue Authority (Civil Suit No. 699 of 1993) [1995] UGHC 70 (31 January 1995)
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.