(2018) 2 African Human Rights Yearbook 113 only be granted if expressly provided for under the law.155 In the event, High Court Judge Kiryabwire (as he then was) did refer to the Card Protection case, albeit in a holding apposite to that urged by the defendant, and found that the applicants’ services were entitled to tax exemption under the Value Added Tax Act.156 Substantial reliance on the case law of the ECJ also occurred in the 2012 case of Uganda Revenue Authority v Total Uganda Ltd157 – another tax dispute before the Commercial Division of the High Court. In interpreting Section 12(1) of the Value Added Tax Act, High Court Judge Christopher Madrama (as he then was) also referred to, and relied upon the ECJ decision in the Card Protection Plan case.158 He held, on the authority of Card Protection Plan, that a supply which was essentially a single or incidental service from a commercial lens should not be mechanically disaggregated, and that the Revenue Authority was required to assess the main characteristics of the whole dealing to evaluate whether the taxable entity was supplying a number of separate services, or a single service.159 In reaching this decision Judge Madrama found that an alternative ECJ decision urged upon the Court by the appellant – the case of Levob Verzekeringen BV and another v Staatssecretaris van Financien160 – did not diminish the authority of the Card Protection Plan case but rather affirmed the principle therein.161 The Judge also seemed to have drawn comfort, in relying on Card Protection, from the fact that the decision in that case had ‘been followed in subsequent cases both by the European Court of Justice of the Communities and the English courts’.162 In addition, in the 2015 case of Kampala Stocks Supermarket Co Ltd v Seven Days International Ltd,163 a trademark dispute in the Commercial Division of the Uganda High Court, Counsel for the defendant relied on, among others, the case of Arsenal Football Club v Matthew Reed.164 In that case, the ECJ had held that the purpose of trademarks was to assure the identity of origin of the protected goods or services to the final consumers by enabling them to distinguish such goods or services from others of a different origin. Ultimately, in resolving the dispute, however, High Court Judge Christopher Madrama placed no reliance on this particular decision. Similar invocation of ECJ jurisprudence by counsel was made in another trademark dispute before the Commercial Division of the Uganda High Court – the 2015 case of Nairobi Java House Ltd v 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 At 10-11. At 15. High Court Civil Appeal No.11 of 2012, arising from Tax Appeal Tribunal Case No. 9 of 2010. n 153. At 10-12. [2006] STC 766, Decision of the First Chamber, ECJ. At 12. At 10. High Court Civil Suit 112 of 2015. Case C-206/01.