Uganda Revenue Authority v Mabosi (Civil Appeal 26 of 1995)

Observed later treatment

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.

Holding

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's finding that 500 boxes of half-litre engine oil had been seized as recorded in the appellant's own seizure notice. Under sections 90 and 91 of the Evidence Act, where the terms of a matter have been reduced to a document, no extrinsic evidence may be admitted to vary its contents. The appellant, having recorded the quantity in a statutory seizure notice, was estopped from disputing it by oral evidence absent coercion, fraud or illegality, and bore the burden of proof once it challenged the document. The appeal was dismissed, but the 40% interest rate, being excessive and unsupported by evidence, was reduced to 30% per annum.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; High Court award upheld, with the interest rate reduced from 40% to 30% per annum

Facts

On 19 November 1992 servants of the appellant, in the respondent's absence, seized goods/lubricants from his premises on the ground that they were uncustomed. The seizure notice (Exh. P1) recorded that 500 boxes of half-litre engine oil were among the goods taken. After the respondent paid the taxes and fines due, 94½ boxes were returned to him (Exh. P7), leaving a shortfall of 405½ boxes. The respondent sued for the value of the unreturned oil. The appellant sought to lead oral evidence that the figure in the seizure notice was a mistake — that the 500 were tins, not boxes — and pointed to the size of the premises and the lorry used to argue that 500 boxes could not have been seized or transported. The trial judge accepted the respondent's case, rejected the extrinsic evidence, valued the 405 boxes at Shs 56,000 per carton (Shs 22,708,000), and awarded 40% interest and costs.

Issues

1. Whether the appellant could adduce extrinsic evidence to vary the quantity of goods recorded in the seizure notice it had issued.
2. Whether the burden of proving the quantity of goods seized lay on the appellant once it challenged the contents of the document it had authored.
3. Whether the trial judge erred in awarding interest at 40% per annum.

Orders

• Appeal dismissed.
• Interest awarded by the trial court reduced from 40% to 30% per annum.
• Respondent awarded four-fifths of the costs of the appeal.
• Costs of the suit to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (3)

• Evidence Act (Cap 43) s.90
• Evidence Act (Cap 43) s.91
• East African Customs & Transfer Tax Management Act s.159

Cases cited (5)

• Sheikh binti Ali's case (1958) EA 623
• Sheik Muhammad Ibrahim v Bibi Biriam 1929) 8 Pat at page 489
• Fenekasi Semakula v Ezekeli Mulondo (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1982)
• James Sawoabiri & Fred Musisi v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 1990)
• J.K. Patel v Spear Motors Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1991)

Cases citing this judgment (11)

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.

• Tumusiime Ivan v Bekalazze Deogratius and 2 Others (HCCS No. 0423 of 2019)
• Senyonjo Dick v Delta Petroleum (Uganda) Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 181 of 2023)
• Rwanyarare v Engano Millers Limited (Civil Suit 20 of 2017)
• Centenary Rural Development Bank Limited v Bagambe (Civil Appeal 60 of 2022)
• Busingye v Mukisa (High Court Civil Appeal 2 of 2019)
• Busingye v Mukisa (HCT-05-CV-CA 2 of 2019)
• Tushemerirwe v Kyezi (Divorce Cause 4 of 2021)
• Kabutiti and Another v Mujurizi (Civil Appeal 7 of 2018)
• Kyabahwa v China Henan Int'l Group Co. Ltd (Civil Suit No. 721 of 2020)
• Otema and Anor v Watuwa and Anor (Civil Suit No. 298 of 2008)
• Angumaniyo v Ezaru Venny Maga (Civil Appeal No. 0024 of 2009)

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