Principle(s):

What is the standard of proof in a claim that an Act of parliament was enacted for an illegitimate purpose?

Brief facts:

The matter raised for constitutional interpretation in a much as it challenges the constitutionality of Section 4(7) of the Income Tax Act i.e. it is in contravention of Articles 20 (1) & (2); 21 (1) 7 (2) plus Article 2(2) of the constitution of Uganda for being discriminatory to resident tax payers who are in the business of providing medical, dental, architectural, engineering, accounting, legal or other professional services public entertainment services, public utility services or construction services whose gross turn over does not exceed 150 million Uganda Shillings in a year of income.

Holding:

The Court found that no case had been made out to show that the impugned provisions contravene Article 21(1) & (2) of the constitution and that the petitioner is not entitled to any of the declarations or remedies sought.