URA-Meera court ruling a warning to public officers
Oct 28, 2007
THE Court of Appeal on October15 ruled that the Commissioner General (CG) of the Uganda Revenue Authority (URA) could be sued in her official capacity. The CG, Allen Kagina, had sought to block Meera Investments Limited from suing her in her official capacity for wrongfully confiscating its computer
By Hillary Nsambu
THE Court of Appeal on October15 ruled that the Commissioner General (CG) of the Uganda Revenue Authority (URA) could be sued in her official capacity. The CG, Allen Kagina, had sought to block Meera Investments Limited from suing her in her official capacity for wrongfully confiscating its computers, files and other records.
Kagina had argued that she could not be sued in her official capacity in tax disputes governed by the two Acts of Parliament.
The ruling means that public officers who commit civil wrongs (torts) will be liable for their acts.
This sends a warning to those occupying statutory offices such as the Registrar of Titles, the IGG and the Inspector General of Police to be careful when exercising their powers.
The court found that public officers could be bound to explain and defend, in any forum, the decisions they take in the performance of their duties.
The CG had argued that she was not vicariously liable for acts or omissions of other officers of the URA, and that Meera Investments should not have taken the matter to the High Court but rather to the Tax Appeal Tribunal (TAT).
However, the court unanimously rejected her arguments and ruled that she could sue and be sued in her official capacity, and that the High Court had unlimited jurisdiction (powers) to try any matters of any nature.
Although the CG had wanted the court to treat the Meera Investments case as a tax dispute governed by the Income Tax Act and VAT Act, the court ruled that the issue was quite distinct from the issue of tax.
The court also ruled that Meera Investments had made no mistake to sue the CG in her official capacity in this matter.
Meera Investments sued Kagina in her official capacity complaining that she had wrongly confiscated its property (computers, files and others documents) under the pretext that she wanted to ensure that the company had complied with the tax laws and regulations.
Meera Investments had argued that the URA had no right to demand sh36b as tax arrears and penalties when the Uganda Investment Authority (UIA) had granted it a certificate of incentive.
A certificate of incentive, under the Investment Code, is a document of investment property on the holder. Any interference with it, such as cancelling or altering its scope, means interfering with the vested property rights of the investor.
Interfering with the incentive certificate that has already been issued could also be interpreted as expropriation of property. This would mean interfering with the investment climate which the Constitution and the Investment Code jealously protect as property.
The incentive certificate means giving an investor protection for his investments. It is a way of re-assuring foreign investors that what happened in 1972 under Idi Amin would not re-occur under the current rule government.
It is for this reason that Meera Investments, which ideals in real estate had to run to the court to protect its investments.
According to the Meera Investment’s plaint, which is still before the High Court for hearing, its properties were under threat as URA wanted to cancel the certificate of incentive that was issued by the UIA.
The writer is a journalist
THE Court of Appeal on October15 ruled that the Commissioner General (CG) of the Uganda Revenue Authority (URA) could be sued in her official capacity. The CG, Allen Kagina, had sought to block Meera Investments Limited from suing her in her official capacity for wrongfully confiscating its computers, files and other records.
Kagina had argued that she could not be sued in her official capacity in tax disputes governed by the two Acts of Parliament.
The ruling means that public officers who commit civil wrongs (torts) will be liable for their acts.
This sends a warning to those occupying statutory offices such as the Registrar of Titles, the IGG and the Inspector General of Police to be careful when exercising their powers.
The court found that public officers could be bound to explain and defend, in any forum, the decisions they take in the performance of their duties.
The CG had argued that she was not vicariously liable for acts or omissions of other officers of the URA, and that Meera Investments should not have taken the matter to the High Court but rather to the Tax Appeal Tribunal (TAT).
However, the court unanimously rejected her arguments and ruled that she could sue and be sued in her official capacity, and that the High Court had unlimited jurisdiction (powers) to try any matters of any nature.
Although the CG had wanted the court to treat the Meera Investments case as a tax dispute governed by the Income Tax Act and VAT Act, the court ruled that the issue was quite distinct from the issue of tax.
The court also ruled that Meera Investments had made no mistake to sue the CG in her official capacity in this matter.
Meera Investments sued Kagina in her official capacity complaining that she had wrongly confiscated its property (computers, files and others documents) under the pretext that she wanted to ensure that the company had complied with the tax laws and regulations.
Meera Investments had argued that the URA had no right to demand sh36b as tax arrears and penalties when the Uganda Investment Authority (UIA) had granted it a certificate of incentive.
A certificate of incentive, under the Investment Code, is a document of investment property on the holder. Any interference with it, such as cancelling or altering its scope, means interfering with the vested property rights of the investor.
Interfering with the incentive certificate that has already been issued could also be interpreted as expropriation of property. This would mean interfering with the investment climate which the Constitution and the Investment Code jealously protect as property.
The incentive certificate means giving an investor protection for his investments. It is a way of re-assuring foreign investors that what happened in 1972 under Idi Amin would not re-occur under the current rule government.
It is for this reason that Meera Investments, which ideals in real estate had to run to the court to protect its investments.
According to the Meera Investment’s plaint, which is still before the High Court for hearing, its properties were under threat as URA wanted to cancel the certificate of incentive that was issued by the UIA.
The writer is a journalist