Wakilii

Uganda Revenue Authority v Elgon Hydro SITI PVT (U) Limited (Miscellaneous Application 33 of 2023)

Tribunal · [2023] UGTAT 20 · 2023 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of an award of costs in Application No. 125 of 2019
Decision
Costs order in Application No. 125 of 2019 set aside and replaced with order that each party bear its own 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 Tax Appeals Tribunal allowed the application for review in part. The Tribunal held that while the award of costs to the respondent on the miscalculation issue was an erroneous decision rather than an error apparent on the face of the record, the Tribunal erred in awarding half costs to one party when both parties were successful on one ground each. Where both parties succeed on different grounds, each party should bear its own costs. The Tribunal set aside the costs order and directed that each party meet its own costs in both the main application and the review application.

Outcome

Costs order in Application No. 125 of 2019 set aside and replaced with order that each party bear its own costs

Facts

In Application No. 125 of 2019, the respondent challenged an import duty assessment of UGX 648,299,671 based on alleged misclassification of valves. The Tribunal ruled that the valves were correctly reclassified by the applicant, attracting 10% import duty. The applicant conceded the correct tax liability was UGX 171,059,811.75. The Tribunal awarded the respondent half the costs on the basis that the applicant had ample time to revise the tax liability but failed to do so, and that the respondent was successful on the miscalculation issue. The applicant sought review of the costs award, arguing that miscalculation of taxes was never raised as a ground of objection or as an issue during the hearing, and that as the successful party on the misclassification issue, it should have been awarded costs.

Issues

  1. Whether there is an error apparent on the record that warrants a review of the ruling?
  2. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • Application for review allowed in part.
  • Each party to meet its own costs in the main application (Application No. 125 of 2019).
  • Each party to meet its own costs in this review application.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Review of Judgment — Error Apparent on Face of Record — Distinction from Erroneous Decision
An error apparent on the face of the record must be self-evident and not require a long-drawn process of reasoning to establish. A mere erroneous decision, even if wrong in law, does not constitute an error apparent on the face of the record and should be challenged by way of appeal rather than review.
Civil Procedure — Costs — Award of Costs Where Both Parties Partially Successful
Where both parties are successful on different grounds in the same matter, the proper order is that each party should bear its own costs. Awarding costs to one party when both have succeeded on separate issues constitutes an error in the exercise of discretion on costs.
Civil Procedure — Costs — General Rule That Costs Follow the Event
A successful party in litigation is generally entitled to costs as an indemnity to compensate for expenses incurred during the litigation. Where a tribunal fails to award costs to a successful party without proper justification, this may constitute an error apparent on the face of the record.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (11)

  • Kinyera v Victoria Seeds Limited (Civil Suit No. 604 of 2015)
  • Kwasa Logistics Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (Application No. 151 of 2022)
  • Gakou Brothers Enterprises Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (HCCA No. 55 of 2021)
  • Nyamogo and Nyamogo Advocates v Kago [2001] 2 EA 173
  • Edison Kanvabwera v Pastori Tumwebaze (SCCA No. 6 of 2004)
  • Independent Medico Legal Unit v the Attorney General of Kenya, Application 2 of 2012
  • COWI v Uganda Revenue Authority (Application No. 4 of 2019)
  • Lalwak v Opio (Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 0058 of 2016)
  • Farm Inputs Care Centre Limited v Klein Karoo Seeds Marketing (PTY) Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 0861 of 2021)
  • Kwizera v Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 2008)
  • Besigye Kizza v Museveni Yoweri Kaguta and Electoral Commission (Presidential Election Petition No. 1 of 2001)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda Revenue Authority v Elgon Hydro SITI PVT (U) Limited (Miscellaneous Application 33 of 2023) 2023 UGTAT 20 (18 May 2023)
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.