Bobi Wine loses bulletproof car battle to URA

Former presidential candidate, Robert Kyagulanyi Ssentamu (Bobi Wine) has lost a litigation battle in which he sought to block Uganda Revenue Authority (URA) from recalling his vehicle for a re-assessment. 

The deputy head of the High Court’s civil division, Emmanuel Baguma on Tuesday dismissed Bobi Wine’s application on grounds that he failed to adduce evidence to convince court that the recalling of the vehicle for re-verification will cause him an irreparable injury which cannot be compensated by an award of damages.

Bobi Wine filed the application on March 1, through Wameli and Company Advocates, seeking a temporary injunction restraining URA and its agents from taking his vehicle Land Cruiser  V8  registration number UBJ 667F which is said to be bulletproofed. 

Kyagulanyi argued that ever since he expressed his bid to contest for the presidency, the government has been targeting him with the aim of depriving him of his properties.

According to Kyagulanyi, the vehicle in question was the only one he was left with following another that was impounded by police following the chaos that marred the Arua Municipality by elections two years ago.

This followed a February 24 letter by URA, recalling the vehicle after the tax collectors developed suspicion that it had been under valued.


According to the tax body, by the time the car was cleared, it was never brought to their attention that it was armoured and therefore it passed through the system as an ordinary car having been under-valued at Shs 157 million.

During the hearing, URA which was represented by a team of lawyers led by Alex Ssali Aliddeki opposed the application arguing that Kyagulanyi was okay with having his vehicle re-examined but from his home yet the law require URA to re-assess and re-evaluate already cleared goods at the URA warehouses.

In his ruling delivered to the parties via email, Justice Baguma noted that a temporary injunction can only be given when an applicant proves that he or she will suffer an irreparable injury that would not adequately be compensated by an award of damages.

Baguma stated that Kyagulanyi’s main aim for seeking an injunction was that the vehicle which URA wanted to re-examine was his only means of transport and his security but he (the judge) was not convinced.

 “It is, therefore, my considered view that the applicant has not adduced evidence to show that the recalling of the said motor vehicle for re-verification/re-examination will cause him an irreparable injury which cannot be compensated by an award of damages.

Baguma ruled that each party will bear its costs.

SHARE

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.