Wakilii

Uganda Revenue Authority v Tata Uganda Limited (Miscellaneous Application 2084 of 2023)

High Court · [2024] UGCOMMC 211 · 2024 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to adduce additional evidence in a pending civil appeal from the Tax Appeals Tribunal
Decision
Application granted allowing the applicant to adduce additional evidence in the pending civil appeal

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 High Court held that where an applicant seeks to adduce additional evidence on appeal, the court must exercise its discretion by applying the exceptional circumstances test laid down by the Supreme Court, even where the appeal is on questions of law only. The court found that although the applicant failed to exercise due diligence by not presenting the verification evidence to the Tax Appeals Tribunal before its ruling, the negligence of counsel should not be visited on the litigant. The application was allowed under sections 98 of the Civil Procedure Act and 33 of the Judicature Act.

Outcome

Application granted allowing the applicant to adduce additional evidence in the pending civil appeal

Facts

In 2017, the Respondent imported short alkyd resin from Egypt for oil paint manufacture. The Certificate of Origin classified the criterion origin as 'P', entitling the imports to preferential treatment under the COMESA Protocol. In 2020, the Applicant conducted a post-review and found that several certificates of origin from 2016 to 2018 were defective and wrongly conferred COMESA preferential tariff treatment. The Applicant assessed import duty of UGX 200,115,987. The Respondent contested this assessment before the Tax Appeals Tribunal, which ruled in its favour on 28 October 2022. The Applicant appealed via Civil Appeal No. 0053 of 2022. On 18 October 2022, the Applicant received verification from the Egyptian Designated Issuing Authority that the goods were not wholly produced in Egypt and that criterion 'X' (not 'P') should have been used. After both parties filed submissions in the appeal, the Applicant filed this application on 7 September 2023 to adduce the verification as additional evidence.

Issues

  1. Whether leave should be granted to the Applicant to adduce additional evidence in Civil Appeal No. 0053 of 2023 which is pending hearing before the High Court.
  2. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • The Applicant is allowed to adduce the additional evidence in respect of the origin of the short alkalyd resin imported by the Respondent from Egypt.
  • The costs of the Application shall abide the outcome of Civil Appeal No. 0053 of 2022.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Additional Evidence on Appeal — Discretion of Court to Allow Evidence in Appeals on Questions of Law Only
A court has discretion to allow adducing of additional evidence on appeal irrespective of the nature of the appeal in question, including appeals on questions of law only, as long as the exceptional circumstances prescribed by the Supreme Court have been established.
Evidence — Additional Evidence on Appeal — Exceptional Circumstances Test — Six Cumulative Requirements
An application to adduce additional evidence on appeal must satisfy six exceptional circumstances: (i) discovery of new and important evidence which, after due diligence, was not within the knowledge of or could not have been produced at trial; (ii) the evidence is relevant to the issues; (iii) the evidence is credible; (iv) the evidence would probably influence the result of the case; (v) proof of the evidence is attached to the affidavit in support; and (vi) the application is brought without undue delay.
Evidence — Additional Evidence on Appeal — Failure to Exercise Due Diligence — Applicant's Awareness Before Tribunal Ruling
Where an applicant received verification evidence ten days before the Tribunal delivered its ruling and failed to apply to reopen the case or inform the Tribunal of the pending verification, the applicant has failed to exercise due diligence in adducing evidence deemed relevant to its case during the trial.
Civil Procedure — Negligence of Counsel — Mistake or Oversight Should Not Be Visited on Litigant
A mistake, negligence, oversight or error on the part of counsel should not be visited on the litigant. Such mistake constitutes just cause entitling the trial judge to use discretion so that the matter is considered on its merits.
Civil Procedure — Defective Affidavits — Severance of Impugned Paragraph in Interest of Substantive Justice
Where an affidavit contains an inaccurate paragraph stating it is in support of a different application but the remaining paragraphs truly set out the facts regarding the application at hand, the impugned paragraph can be severed and the court may consider the remaining paragraphs in the interest of substantive justice.
Civil Procedure — Wrong Citation of Law — Court May Ignore Irregularity and Insert Correct Law Where Jurisdiction Exists
Where an application omits to cite any law or cites the wrong law, but jurisdiction to grant the order sought exists, the irregularity or omission can be ignored and the correct law inserted.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (8)

  • Rtd Col Dr Kiiza Besigye v Electoral Commission and Another (Presidential Election Petition No. 1 of 2006)
  • Saggu v Road Masters Cycles (2002) EA 258
  • Lubanga Jamada v Dr Ddumba Edward (CACA No. 10 of 2011)
  • Attorney General v Paul K Semwogerere and Two Others (Civil Application No. 02 of 2004)
  • Attorney General and Inspector General of Government v Afric Cooperative Society Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 06 of 2012)
  • Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda (SCCA No. 8 of 1998)
  • Nicholas Roussos v Ghulam Hussein Habib Virani and Another (SCCA No. 9 of 1993)
  • FL Kaderbhai and Another v Shamsherali and Others (SC Civil Application No. 20 of 2008)

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.

Uganda Revenue Authority v Tata Uganda Limited (Miscellaneous Application 2084 of 2023) [2024] UGCommC 211 (31 July 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.