Wakilii

Uganda Revenue Authority v Heritage Oil & Gas Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 2400 of 2023)

High Court · [2024] UGCOMMC 416 · 2024 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for security for costs in ongoing consolidated civil appeals arising from Tax Appeals Tribunal decisions
Decision
Application dismissed as res judicata; appeal to proceed to hearing

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 Court held that the application for security for costs was res judicata because the same relief had been sought on the same grounds between the same parties in Miscellaneous Application No. 240 of 2014, which was heard and finally determined. The doctrine of res judicata prevents re-litigation of matters already adjudicated. The application was dismissed.

Outcome

Application dismissed as res judicata; appeal to proceed to hearing

Facts

Uganda Revenue Authority (URA) brought an application for security for costs against Heritage Oil & Gas Limited (HOGL), a foreign company registered in Isle of Man, Bahamas, and Mauritius. The application arose from consolidated civil appeals concerning tax assessments issued by URA following HOGL's sale of its petroleum exploration interests to Tullow Uganda Ltd in 2010. URA contended that HOGL has no assets in Uganda and would be unable to pay costs if the appeals fail. HOGL filed a preliminary objection that the application is res judicata, pointing to two previous applications for security for costs: Miscellaneous Application No. 240 of 2014 (dismissed by Justice Wangutusi) and Miscellaneous Application No. 525 of 2016 (not finally determined). URA argued the circumstances had changed significantly, justifying a fresh application. The Court heard submissions on the preliminary point of law.

Issues

  1. Whether the application for security for costs is res judicata

Orders

  • This application is res judicata
  • This application is dismissed
  • The costs of this application shall abide the outcome of the appeal
  • The appeal shall be fixed for mention on 18/03/2024

Rules and key headnotes

Res Judicata — Application for Security for Costs — Successive Applications on Same Grounds Between Same Parties
No court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties, litigating under the same title, in a court competent to try the subsequent suit, and has been heard and finally decided by that court. Where an application for security for costs has been made, heard, and finally determined between the same parties on the same grounds, a subsequent application for the same relief is res judicata and must be dismissed.
Res Judicata — Test for Determining Whether Matter is Res Judicata
The test for res judicata is whether the plaintiff in the subsequent suit or action is trying to bring before the Court, in another way and in the form of another cause of action, a matter which has already been put before a court of competent jurisdiction in earlier proceedings and which has been adjudicated upon. The plea of res judicata applies not only to points upon which the first court was required to adjudicate but to every point which belonged to the subject matter of litigation and which the parties exercising reasonable diligence might have brought forward at the time.
Affidavit Evidence — Grounds for Application — Prohibition on Introducing New Grounds in Affidavit in Rejoinder
The grounds for an application must be stated in the Notice of Motion. An affidavit in support is evidence of facts that support the grounds stated in the Notice of Motion. A party may not introduce a new ground in an affidavit in rejoinder because the opposing party has no right of reply, and this offends the constitutional right to be heard under Article 28 of the 1995 Constitution.
Security for Costs — Successive Applications — Requirement for Significant and Relevant Change of Circumstances
A subsequent application for security for costs after an unsuccessful first application is only admissible if there is a quite separate legal or factual basis for the application. There must be a significant and relevant change of circumstances to justify treating the application as a new one on different circumstances. The burden lies on the applicant to prove that the alleged substantial change in circumstances is relevant.
Definition of Suit — Miscellaneous Application Constitutes a Suit
Under section 2 of the Civil Procedure Act Cap 71, a suit is defined to mean all civil proceedings commenced in any manner prescribed. A miscellaneous application falls within the meaning of the definition of the term suit and is therefore a suit in its nature for purposes of applying the doctrine of res judicata.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (9)

  • Boutique Shazim Ltd v Norattam Bhatia & Anor (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 36 of 2007)
  • Attorney General & Anor v James Mark Kamoga & Anor (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2004)
  • Marvid Pharmaceuticals Ltd v Royal Group of Pakistan & Anor (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 871 of 2020)
  • Holyoake vs Candy [2016] EWHC 3065
  • Kristjansson Vs R. Verny & Co. Ltd (t/a Fuerst Day Lawson Fish) [1998] ADR.L. R 06/18
  • Woodhouse Vs Consignia [2002] EWCA Civ 275
  • Messina & Anor v Stallion Insurance Co. Ltd [2005] 1 EA 264
  • Horizon Coaches Ltd v Edward Rubangaranga & Anor (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 18 of 2009)
  • Mansukhlal Ramji Karia & Anor v Attorney General and 2 Others (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 20 of 2002) [2005] 1 EA 83

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda Revenue Authority v Heritage Oil & Gas Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 2400 of 2023) [2024] UGCommC 416 (2 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.