Wakilii

Uganda Taxi Operators & Drivers Association v Uganda Revenue Authority (Civil Application 52 of 2021)

Supreme Court · [2022] UGSC 37 · 2022 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application before a single justice of the Supreme Court for extension of time to appeal against part of a Court of Appeal judgment, met by a preliminary objection on jurisdiction
Decision
Application for extension of time to appeal struck out/dismissed as incompetent, with costs to the respondent

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 single justice upheld the respondent's preliminary objection and held the application incompetent. Once the Court of Appeal decision in Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2013 was appealed to and confirmed in its entirety by the Supreme Court (SCCA No. 13 of 2015), it merged into and became the decision of the final court; there was no longer a Court of Appeal decision against which time to appeal could be extended. Although the Makula International principle allows a court to correct an illegality even without jurisdictional foundation, a single justice cannot overturn a determination of a full panel — only a panel of five justices could do so. Granting the application would itself create an illegality. The application was dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Application for extension of time to appeal struck out/dismissed as incompetent, with costs to the respondent

Facts

UTODA sued URA for a refund of monies retained as VAT since 2001 in respect of its management of Kampala taxi parks. The High Court held UTODA liable to pay VAT. The Court of Appeal (Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2013) reversed, ordered a refund of about Shs 3,903,136,565 and made orders on interest. URA's appeal to the Supreme Court (SCCA No. 13 of 2015) was dismissed, confirming the Court of Appeal decision in its entirety. A dispute then arose over computation of the interest. UTODA's successive applications to correct the alleged error — at the Court of Appeal (Misc. App. No. 152 of 2017) and the Supreme Court (including SCCA No. 24 of 2019) — were all dismissed. UTODA then brought this application before a single justice seeking extension of time to appeal against part of the Court of Appeal judgment, contending the interest awarded was inconsistent with the VAT Act and amounted to an illegality.

Issues

  1. Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to entertain an application for extension of time to appeal against a Court of Appeal decision that has already been appealed to, and confirmed by, the Supreme Court.
  2. Whether an alleged illegality in the impugned decision justifies the court's intervention despite the absence of a jurisdictional foundation for the application.
  3. Whether a single justice of the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to grant relief that a full panel of the court has declined to grant.

Orders

  • Preliminary objection upheld.
  • The application is dismissed.
  • Costs of the application awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Appellate Jurisdiction — Supreme Court — Merger of Court of Appeal Decision into Final Decision
Where a decision of the Court of Appeal has been appealed to and confirmed in its entirety by the Supreme Court, it merges into and becomes the decision of the Supreme Court as the final court; there is no longer a Court of Appeal decision against which an extension of time to appeal can be sought, and an application to do so is incompetent.
Extension of Time — Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules — Act Authorised or Required by the Rules
An extension of time under Rule 5 of the Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions may only be granted for the doing of an act authorised or required by the Rules; it cannot be invoked to appeal a decision that no longer exists as a decision of the Court of Appeal.
Illegality — Makula International Principle — Limits Imposed by Want of Jurisdiction
While an illegality once brought to the attention of the court overrides all questions of pleading and may be corrected even where the proceedings have no jurisdictional foundation, this power cannot be exercised in a manner that itself creates an illegality.
Single Justice of the Supreme Court — Section 8 of the Judicature Act — No Power to Overturn a Full Panel
A single justice of the Supreme Court, whose powers under section 8 of the Judicature Act are confined to interlocutory causes or matters, has no jurisdiction to grant relief that a full panel has declined; only a panel of five justices may correct such a matter, and a single justice purporting to do so would act without authority.

Legislation cited (11)

Cases cited (13)

  • Hwan Sung Ltd v M&D Timber Merchants and Transporters Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2018)
  • DFCU Bank Ltd v Donna Kamuli (Civil Appeal No. 29 of 2019)
  • Geoffrey Komakech v Rose Akol & Others (Civil Appeal No. 21 of 2010)
  • Makula International Ltd v His Eminence Cardinal Nsubuga & Anor (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1981)
  • Francis Makumbi vs. NIC (1979) HCB 230
  • Henry Kawalya vs Kinyankwanzi (1975) HCB 372
  • Hilda Wilson Namusoke & Anor v Owalla's Home Investment Trust (E.A) & Anor (Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2017)
  • Attorney General v Bumero Estates Limited (Civil Appeal No. 25 of 2019)
  • Nilefos Minerals Ltd v Attorney General & Anor (Miscellaneous Cause No. 184 of 2014)
  • Beatrice Kobusingye v Fiona Nyakana (Civil Appeal No. 5 of 2004)
  • Uganda National Examinations Board v Mpora General Contractors (Civil Application No. 79 of 2004)
  • Otim v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 14 of 2018)
  • NSSF v Alcon (Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2009)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda Taxi Operators & Drivers Association v Uganda Revenue Authority (Civil Application 52 of 2021) [2022] UGSC 37 (17 March 2022)
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.