MUHAYE BRIGET 421-053-13-20726 LLB3 -WEEKEND

ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY IN UGANDA

Academic Year 2023/2024
Question
Using decided authorities and statute law, Musa is facing both criminal and civil proceedings
for failure to pay taxes to the Uganda Revenue Authority. The Civil Court has ruled in his
favour against the Uganda Revenue Authority. Criminal proceedings are still going on before
the High Court of Uganda. Please Advise on the validity of those proceedings against Musa
after his success in the Civil Court.
Law Applicable
Magistrates Court’s Act Cap 16 (MCA)
Case Laws

Both civil and criminal proceedings are conducted in a court room and these are instigated by
an aggrieved party who starts from Magistrate courts for purposes of mention. A civil case
takes place to settle claims or lawsuits as a person or multiple people while a criminal case
occurs when charges are brought against a person by the Government. A person has a right to
institute a charge in both civil and criminal proceedings on the same subject matter and this is
done concurrently. In Joseph Jagenda vs Uganda HCT-00-CR-CM 003/2011, it was stated
that a civil suit and the criminal charges are two different types of legal actions that have
different purposes, standards of proof and remedies. In Sarah Ssozi and Anor vs Uganda
Criminal Appeal No. 247/204, Justices in their judgment discussed the possibility of both
civil and criminal proceedings running at the same time when it stated that it was not a
defense available to the defendant to assert that civil proceedings were already instituted
against him and the principle was that the standard of proof required in civil matters is
generally different from the one required in criminal matters.

The validity of criminal proceedings against Musa after his success in the civil court depends
on several factors such as the nature and scope of the civil suit, the grounds and evidence of
criminal charges and the principles of res judicata and double jeopardy. Therefore, it is
possible that Musa can succeed in the civil suit but still face criminal proceedings for failure
to pay taxes because the civil suit may not necessarily resolve all the issues that are relevant
for the criminal charges for example in Uganda Revenue Authority vs Shell (U) Ltd and 10
Ors Civil App No.17/2014, the SC stated that URA could pursue criminal proceedings
against Shell and others for tax evasion even after they had won a civil suit against URA for
recovery of taxes.
Under criminal law, a crime is considered to be an offense against society as a whole and it is
the state that institutes proceedings in criminal proceedings. It should also be noted that there
is no universal principle that proceedings in a criminal case must necessarily be stayed when
a similar or identical matter is pending before a civil court however; there is a common law
principle that criminal matters should take precedence over civil matters for example in
Kaddu and Another v Uganda Crim Revision Cause No.4/22, it was echoed that an order
of stay of proceedings particularly stay of criminal proceedings is made sparingly and only in
exceptional circumstances and not given as a matter of course.
The court has power to order a stay of civil proceedings until ongoing criminal proceedings
have concluded and similarly power to order stay of criminal proceedings pending the
disposal of another suit or proceeding if there is a risk of injustice or abuse of process of law,

Page 1 of 2
MUHAYE BRIGET 421-053-13-20726 LLB3 -WEEKEND

this position is established under section 209 MCA. In Kakande Aloysious v Uganda Msc
App No. 3/2022, it was stated that where there is an existing civil suit, a criminal case can be
brought about enforcing public interests and in Uganda vs Ssonko Crim Revision
Application 12/2019, court stated that staying of a criminal matter which was already under
hearing in preference to the civil suit that was filed after the criminal matter was a
miscarriage of justice. Therefore, the fact that standard and remedies under civil and criminal
proceedings are different; it may be a miscarriage of justice if the criminal proceedings
against Musa be stayed.

In Nkalubo Augustine vs Uganda Misc App No. 27/2020, it was stated that although
common law is clear that criminal matters should take precedence over civil matters, the
position is persuasive and court is not bound to follow it mandatorily especially where strict
adherence to it could occasion a miscarriage of justice hence there are some situations where
civil suit may affect the validity of criminal proceedings against Musa.
One of such is where the principle of res judicata applies, this principle means that a matter
which has been finally decided by a competent court cannot be re-opened or re-litigated by
the same parties or their privies. It can operate as an estoppel or a bar. Section 210 of the
MCA establishes this position and in Ericson vs Uganda Revenue Authority Misc App No.
67/2021, the Tax Appeals Tribunal held that URA was barred by re judicata from assessing
Ericson for income tax after it had lost a civil suit against Ericson for recovery of income tax.

Another situation where the civil suit may affect the validity of the criminal proceedings
against Musa is where the principle of double jeopardy applies. This means that a person
cannot be tried or punished twice for the same offence and it can operate as a defense or a
prohibition. As a defense, it allows a person who has been convicted or acquitted of an
offence to plead that conviction or acquittal as a bar to any subsequent prosecution for the
same offence and as a prohibition because it prevents a court from trying or sentencing a
person who has already been tried or sentenced for the same offence.
Therefore, if Musa’s criminal proceedings against URA involved the same offence as another
criminal proceeding that had already faced and been convicted or acquitted of, then double
jeopardy may prevent URA from prosecuting him again for that offence.

Conclusion
Musa’s success in the civil court against URA does not automatically invalidate the criminal
proceedings against him for failure to pay taxes however, there are some circumstances
where he may be able to challenge the validity of those proceedings based on res judicata ,
double jeopardy or a stay of suit and this was evidenced in Sebulime Baker vs Uganda HC
Crim App No. 2018/21 where it was stated that where a civil court has taken cognizance and
its deciding the same issue, the criminal proceedings before the trial court amount to abuse of
process of law. Hence he should consult his lawyer who can help him defend his rights or a
request to the DPP for application of a Nolle prosequi.

Page 2 of 2