Wakilii

UGMA Engineering Corporation Limited v Lugazi Town Coouncil (Civil Appeal 33 of 1990)

High Court · [1992] UGHC 42 · 1992 Appeal Allowed — Matter Remitted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from a ruling of the Valuation Court at Lugazi dismissing objections to a draft valuation list under the Local Government (Rating) Decree No. 3 of 1979
Decision
Matter remitted to the Valuation Court for a fresh rehearing with directions to properly consider the objection and the jurisdictional issue regarding boundaries

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 High Court allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the Valuation Court for a fresh hearing. The court held that the objector was entitled to an explanation from the valuer as to how the new rates were calculated, and failure to provide this amounted to a miscarriage of justice. The court further held that the issue of whether the appellant's property fell within the boundaries of Lugazi Town Council was fundamental and could not be ignored, even though it had not been properly raised or evidenced before the Valuation Court.

Outcome

Matter remitted to the Valuation Court for a fresh rehearing with directions to properly consider the objection and the jurisdictional issue regarding boundaries

Facts

UGMA Engineering Corporation Ltd objected to the draft valuation list prepared by the Government Valuer under the Local Government (Rating) Decree No. 3 of 1979. The rateable value of their industrial hereditaments had risen dramatically from Shs. 619,888.50 in 1987 to Shs. 9,467,089.50 for 1990. The company, represented by its Accounts Manager Jacob Ochieno, appeared before the Valuation Court and requested an explanation of how the new rate was calculated. The company also submitted that it had made no profits since 1980, that the Town Council rendered no services to it, and that the company maintained schools and other facilities at its own expense. The Government Valuer responded that section 10 of the Decree set out the formula and it was not mandatory to explain the basis of valuation. The Valuation Court dismissed the objection as incompetent and lacking in merit. On appeal, the appellant raised a new issue—that its property was outside the boundaries of Lugazi Town Council and therefore not subject to rating. The High Court held that the objection was poorly presented before the Valuation Court and that the court failed to assist the layman objector to properly frame his case.

Issues

  1. Whether the Valuation Court erred in interpreting section 13 of the Local Government (Rating) Decree No. 3 of 1979.
  2. Whether the appellant was denied a full hearing contrary to the doctrine of audi alteram partem.
  3. Whether the valuation of the appellant's hereditaments was excessive and arbitrary.
  4. Whether the appellant was entitled to consideration of the fact that the Town Council did not render services to the appellant.
  5. Whether the appellant's industrial hereditaments were within the boundaries of Lugazi Town Council for rating purposes.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Valuation Court ruling set aside.
  • Case remitted to the Valuation Court for fresh rehearing.
  • Each party to bear its own costs of the appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Administrative Law — Valuation Courts — Duty to assist unrepresented objectors — Fair hearing
A valuation court conducting a hearing under section 7 of the Local Government (Rating) Decree No. 3 of 1979 has a duty to ensure a just decision of the objection, and where an objector is unrepresented and the objection is poorly presented, the court should assist the objector to properly formulate the objection rather than summarily dismissing it.
Tax Law — Rating — Right to explanation of valuation — Section 10 of the Rating Decree
Where the rateable value of a hereditament increases dramatically from one valuation period to the next, an objector is entitled to an explanation from the Government Valuer as to how the new rate was arrived at, notwithstanding that section 10 of the Local Government (Rating) Decree No. 3 of 1979 sets out the general formula for valuation. A strict interpretation that knowledge of the formula alone is sufficient would defeat the purpose of the objection procedure under section 13.
Administrative Law — Illegality — Jurisdictional challenges — Duty of court to consider
Where a possible illegality affecting the foundation of a case is brought to the attention of a court on appeal, the court cannot ignore it even if the issue was not properly raised or evidenced before the lower tribunal. The proper course is to remit the matter for the jurisdictional issue to be properly determined.

Legislation cited (5)

  • Local Government (Rating) Decree No. 3 of 1979 s.7
  • Local Government (Rating) Decree No. 3 of 1979 s.10
  • Local Government (Rating) Decree No. 3 of 1979 s.13
  • Local Government (Rating) Decree No. 3 of 1979 s.15
  • Local Government (Rating) Decree No. 3 of 1979 s.38

Cases cited (6)

  • Makula International Ltd v His Eminence Cardinal Nsubuga and Another (HCB No. 11 of 1982)
  • Esso Petroleum Co. Ltd. v Ministry of Labour [1969] QB 98 C.A. 109
  • Whiteline Retreads Ltd. v President of Valuation Court [1968] EA 517
  • Re an Application by Attorney General of Kenya [1958] EA 529
  • Chester House v Nairobi City Council [1964] EA 582
  • Selle v Associated Motor Boat Co. [1968] EA 123

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

UGMA Engineering Corporation Limited v Lugazi Town Coouncil (Civil Appeal 33 of 1990) [1992] UGHC 42 (15 June 1992)
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.