Uganda Revenue Authority v Tumusiime (Civil Application 617 of 2024)

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.

Holding

The applicant had been granted a stay of execution conditional on depositing UGX 50,000,000 as security for performance within 30 days, but deposited it six days late owing to its internal approval processes for releasing funds. Applying Shanti v Hindocha, the court held that the applicant had shown sufficient reason for the delay, the delay not being attributable to dilatory conduct on its part, and that the security had in fact already been deposited before the application was filed. The court exercised its discretion under Rule 5 of the Court of Appeal Rules Directions to extend time and validated the deposit of security already made in compliance with the earlier order.

Outcome

Application granted; extension of time allowed and the late deposit of security for performance validated.

Facts

The High Court delivered judgment in Civil Suit No. 480 of 2016 in favour of the respondent against the applicant, Uganda Revenue Authority. The applicant appealed via Civil Appeal No. 276 of 2019, which remained pending. It obtained an order of stay of execution on condition that it deposit UGX 50,000,000 as security for due performance within one month. The applicant wrote to the Registrar for the court's bank account details and obtained the mandatory internal approvals required to release the funds. Owing to these internal approval and transfer processes, it deposited the security on 12 October 2023, six days after the 6 October 2023 deadline. The applicant was subsequently served with execution proceedings (HCT-00-EMA-0103) by the respondent seeking to execute the decree despite the stay. The applicant then filed this application to extend time and validate the deposit. The respondent filed neither an affidavit in reply nor written submissions.

Issues

1. Whether the applicant showed sufficient reason to extend the time within which to deposit the security for performance ordered by the court.
2. Whether the deposit of security for performance made outside the time ordered by the court should be validated.

Orders

• The security for performance of UGX 50,000,000 deposited by the applicant in compliance with the court order in Civil Application No. 212 of 2023 is validated.
• Each party shall bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (5)

• Judicature Act Cap. 16 s.33
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions Rule 2(2)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions Rule 5
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions Rule 43(1)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions Rule 44(1)

Cases cited (3)

• Re Christine Namatovu Tebaluka (1992-93) HCB 85
• Shanti v Hindocha and Others [1973] EA 207
• Bhat's case (1962) E.A 497

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