However, the law establishing the Uganda Revenue Authority requires it to administer and enforce the laws of Uganda in respect of revenue collection. The Preamble of the Uganda Revenue Authority Act reads: “An Act to establish the Uganda Revenue Authority as a central body for the assessment and collection of specified revenue, to administer and enforce the laws relating to such revenue and to provide for related matters.” In K.M. Enterprises and others v Uganda Revenue Authority [2008] UGCommC 21 the court noted that; “The authority of the Uganda Revenue Authority is to administer certain tax laws, collecting the tax due. The Uganda Revenue Authority cannot, in breach of duties imposed by statute agree to collect less tax than due from any particular tax payer.” Therefore as an agent of the GOU one of the objectives of the respondent is to administer and enforce the laws relating to such revenue. The GOU, though is the principal, is still bound by the laws in respect to revenue collection. Any agreement entered into by the GOU should abide by the law in respect of revenue collection.
The Tribunal does not think it is merely sufficient to argue that once a person is an agent of government it will not abide by a statute. While issue 1.5 was raised in respect to the application of estoppel to Article 23.5 of the EA2 PSA, issue 1.6 addressed the application of the principles of legitimate expectation. The applicants attempted to merge the principle of estoppel with that of legitimate expectation. They argued that the two issues are heavily dependent on each other. They argued that “estopped” is not a technical term but simply refers to “circumstances in which by the operation of law, an individual or body is prevented from behaving in a particular manner.” Legitimate expectation is a principle distinct from estoppel but shares a common origin with estoppel and is rooted in principle of fairness. Consequently the GOU is estopped by the principles of fairness. The applicants also argued that principle of pacta sunt servanda operates to prevent unfairness.
The respondent, on the other hand, argued that both estoppel and the principle of legitimate expectation are not applicable in the present application. The respondent argued that there can be no estoppel against a statute. Furthermore, an expectation grounded upon an ultra vires representation cannot be legitimate. The respondent contended that “the pacta sunt servanda argument by the applicants is no more than a recycling of the same untenable arguments discussed earlier under a different name.” The rule of estoppel is a rule of evidence. In order to understand it, we looked at various descriptions and definitions. Under the Evidence Act Cap. 6, estoppel is described as: “When one person has, by his or her declaration, act or omission, intentionally caused or permitted another person to believe a thing to be true and to act upon that belief, neither he or she nor his or her representative shall be allowed, in any suit or proceeding between himself or herself and that person or his or her representative, to deny the truth of that thing.” According to Osborn’s Concise Law Dictionary 6th edition, estoppel is defined as: “…. The rule of evidence or doctrine of law which precludes a person from denying the truth of some statement formerly made by him, or the existence of facts which he has by words or conduct led to others to believe it.
If a person by a representation induces another to change his position on the faith of it, he cannot afterwards deny the truth of his representation…” Black’s Law Dictionary (supra) p. 589 defines estoppel as: “n.1. A bar that prevents one from asserting a claim or right that contradicts what one has said or done before or what has been legally established as true… 2. A bar that prevents the relitigation of issues. 3. An affirmative defense alleging good-faith reliance on a misleading representation …” From the above definitions a number of things are clear. It is a rule of evidence. Secondly, it is a bar or a shield and cannot be a sword to create liability. In Mulji Jetha Ltd V Commissioner of Income Tax [1967] E.A. 50 it was held, inter alia, that the claim must fail, because the plaintiff was seeking to use the principle of equitable estoppel to found a cause of action.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57