[2010] UGHC 43

[2010] UGHC 43

The court found that the amount of Shs.4,072,453,800/= was agreed upon by both parties during the conferencing of HCCS No. 0579 of 2007, and the judgment was entered on that basis. The applicant's assertion that there was an error or mistake was contrary to the record, as the agreement on the amount was clear and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2010] UGHC 43
Parties
Applicant: Informer No. TCI/002/07/05-06; Respondent: Uganda Revenue Authority
Court
High Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
Misc.App.No. 202 of 2010
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Judgment
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the respondent
Legal Topics
Review of Judgment, Error Apparent on Record, Tax Informer Reward, Functus Officio
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Tax Law Review of Judgment Error Apparent on Record Tax Informer Reward Functus Officio

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Informer No. TCI/002/07/05-06

Applicant

Uganda Revenue Authority

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Judgment

  1. 1 Whether there was an error or mistake apparent on the face of the record justifying review of the judgment.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to a review of the judgment based on the amount of tax recovered.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the amount of Shs.4,072,453,800/= was agreed upon by both parties during the conferencing of HCCS No. 0579 of 2007, and the judgment was entered on that basis. The applicant's assertion that there was an error or mistake was contrary to the record, as the agreement on the amount was clear and unambiguous. The court held that there was no error or mistake apparent on the face of the record, and no sufficient reason was disclosed to warrant a review. The court further held that it was functus officio, having already determined the issue based on the parties' agreement, and that the proper remedy for the applicant, if aggrieved, would be to appeal or pursue a claim...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the respondent

Orders

  • The application for review is dismissed with costs to the respondent.