Wakilii

Tullow Uganda Ltd & Anor v Wabyona & Anor (Miscellaneous Application No. 197 of 2017)

High Court · [2017] UGCOMMC 40 · 2017 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to strike out the Respondent's application for review of a consent judgment on the ground that the Respondent lacks locus standi
Decision
Preliminary objection dismissed; Respondent's application for review of consent judgment to proceed

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

Held that the preliminary objection to the Respondent's locus standi fails because his application is in substance public interest litigation challenging the authority of Uganda Revenue Authority to waive taxes, rather than a conventional review application. Wrong procedure adopted does not defeat the court's inherent jurisdiction where parties have been heard and no injustice results. Article 17 of the Constitution gives citizens standing to challenge alleged breaches of law by public authorities, and the court must lend its processes to the exercise of this constitutional duty. Preliminary objection dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Preliminary objection dismissed; Respondent's application for review of consent judgment to proceed

Facts

The Applicants Tullow Uganda Ltd and Tullow Uganda Operations Pty Ltd entered into a consent judgment with Uganda Revenue Authority on 19 June 2015 resolving a tax dispute. The Respondent Jackson Wabyona, a citizen who was not a party to the proceedings, subsequently filed an application (HCMA 137 of 2017) seeking to review and set aside the consent judgment. Wabyona alleged that the consent judgment constituted a waiver of taxes amounting to over US$471 million, that Uganda Revenue Authority acted ultra vires and contrary to law, and that as a citizen with a duty under article 17 of the Constitution to combat misuse of public property he was aggrieved by the decree. The Applicants filed the present application under Order 6 rule 30 of the Civil Procedure Rules to strike out Wabyona's application on the ground that he lacks locus standi because he is neither an aggrieved person nor a person against whom the decree was passed within the meaning of Order 46 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Issues

  1. Whether the Respondent has locus standi to apply for review of a consent judgment entered between the Applicants and Uganda Revenue Authority where he was not a party to the proceedings
  2. Whether a third party can bring an application for review of a decree under Order 46 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules
  3. Whether article 17 of the Constitution confers standing on a citizen to challenge acts of a public authority as a waste of public resources
  4. Whether the application for review is the appropriate procedure for a public interest challenge to the acts of Uganda Revenue Authority

Orders

  • The preliminary objection is overruled.
  • The application to strike out High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 137 of 2017 is dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Locus Standi — Review of Consent Judgment — Third Party Application — Meaning of 'Person Aggrieved'
The expression 'any person considering himself or herself aggrieved' in Order 46 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules and section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act means a person who has suffered a legal grievance, a person against whom a decision has been pronounced which has wrongfully deprived him of something or wrongfully affected his title to something, and is not restricted to parties to the proceedings resulting in the order or decree but may in suitable cases include third parties.
Administrative Law — Judicial Review — Public Interest Litigation — Standing of Citizens — Article 17 Constitution
Article 17 of the Constitution imposes a positive duty on citizens to combat corruption and misuse or wastage of public property and grants citizens wide latitude as to how to exercise this duty, which may include bringing legal action to challenge acts of public authorities alleged to breach the law.
Civil Procedure — Objections — Locus Standi — When Determinable as Preliminary Issue — Substance Over Procedure
Where an application is in substance public interest litigation challenging the lawfulness of an act of a public authority, the question of whether the applicant has sufficient interest should not be determined as a preliminary issue in isolation from the grounds of the application, as the determination of locus standi requires consideration of the nature and merits of the grievance alleged.
Civil Procedure — Wrong Procedure — Effect — Substance Over Form — Article 126(2)(e) Constitution
The adoption of a wrong procedure does not invalidate proceedings or defeat the inherent jurisdiction of the court where the court has jurisdiction over the subject matter, parties have had an opportunity to be heard, and no prejudice has been caused to any party. Matters of procedure are not normally of a fundamental nature and failure to follow the correct procedure is not a ground for interfering with proceedings where no injustice results, in accordance with article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution which commands the administration of substantive justice without undue regard to technicalities.
Constitutional Law — Access to Justice — Constitutional Rights Without Prescribed Procedure — Court's Duty
Where the Constitution confers a right or imposes a duty but Parliament or the rule-making authority has not enacted any law to prescribe the procedure for enforcement, the courts can be approached by any procedure by which the court can be moved, and a citizen whose constitutional rights or duties are at issue must not be turned away by procedural hiccups.
Administrative Law — Standing — Taxpayer's Standing — Challenge to Public Authority's Acts
A taxpayer has locus standi to approach a court where a breach of public law is being committed and seek intervention. A citizen may move court for declarations that the actions of a public authority are ultra vires and affect the rights of citizens where there is good ground for supposing that a public authority is transgressing the law in a way that offends or injures citizens.

Legislation cited (10)

Cases cited (28)

  • Ladak Abdulla Mohammed Hussein v Griffiths Isingoma Kakiiza & 2 Others (SCCA No. 8 of 1995)
  • Yusufu v Nokrach (1971) EA 104
  • Re Nakivubo Chemists (U) Ltd (1971) HCB 12
  • Jinja Municipal Council & Anor v Registered Trustees of the Indian Recreation Club & 2 Others (HCMA No. 66 of 2004)
  • R v London Sessions Appeal Committee Ex Parte Westminster City Council [1951] 1 All ER 1032
  • Re: Sidebotham (3)
  • Ealing Borough Council v Jones [1959] 1 All ER 286
  • Mohammed Allibhai v Bukenya & Anor (SCCA No. 56 of 1996)
  • Hassanali v City Motor Accessories Ltd & Ors [1972] EA 423
  • Hirani v Kassam (1952) 19 EACA 131
  • Brooke Bond Liebig (T) Ltd v Mallya [1975] 1 EA 266
  • Inland Revenue Commissioners v National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses Ltd [1982] AC 617
  • Kikungwe Issa, Salaamu Musumba & Ors v Standard Bank Investment Corporation & Ors (HCMA No. 394 & 395 of 2004)
  • Chandrika Prasad versus the Republic of Fiji and the Attorney General of Fiji HCB 0217 of 00L
  • Attorney General of Gambia v N'jie [1961] AC 617
  • ex parte. Official Receiver in re Reed, Bowen & Company
  • Attorney General v Independent Broadcasting Authority [1973] All ER 689
  • R v G.L.C. Ex p Blackburn [1976] 1 WLR 550
  • Boyes v Gathure [1969] 1 EA 385
  • Saggu v Roadmaster Cycles (U) Ltd [2002] 1 EA 258
  • Nanjibhi Prabhudas and Company Limited v Standard Bank Limited [1968] EA
  • Re Christine Namatovu Tebajjukira [1992-93] HCB 85
  • Juandoo v Attorney General of Guyana (1971) AC 972
  • Attorney General v Ali & Ors (1989) LRC 474
  • Mawji v Arusha General Store [1970] 1 EA 137
  • Purcell v F C Trigell Ltd (trading as Southern Window and General Cleaning Co) & Anor [1970] 3 All ER 671
  • Huddersfield Banking Co. Ltd v Henry Lister & Son Ltd (1895) 2 Ch D 273
  • Ex Parte Sidebotham (1880) 14 Ch D 458

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.

Tullow Uganda Ltd & Anor v Wabyona & Anor (Miscellaneous Application No. 197 of 2017) [2017] UGCommC 40 (12 May 2017)
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.