Download

Uganda Judgment

Tax Appeals Tribunal (Uganda)

Meghani v Uganda Revenue Authority (Application No. TAT 185 of 2020) [2021] UGTAT 15 (29 January 2021)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The Tribunal held that its discretion to extend time for filing an application for review is strictly limited by statute to applications brought within six months of the taxation decision. The applicant was served with the objection decision on 24th March 2020, making the statutory deadline 24th September 2020. The application was filed on 11th December 2020, well outside the prescribed period. Although the applicant cited COVID-19 restrictions and illness as reasons for delay, the Tribunal found that the final lockdown restrictions were lifted on 22nd June 2020, leaving sufficient time to file before the deadline. The applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay after 22nd June 2020. The Tribunal concluded that it had no discretion to extend time beyond the statutory six months and that granting the application would prejudice the respondent. Accordingly, the application was dismissed with costs.

Court disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application to extend time for filing an application for review is dismissed.
  • The applicant shall pay the costs of this application to the respondent.

02

Material facts

Parties

Farid Meghani

Applicant Counsel: Arnold Nogan Kimara, Martha Nuuna, David Oluka

Uganda Revenue Authority

Respondent Counsel: Sam Kwerit

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Extend Time for Review

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The applicant argued that he was prevented from filing the application for review within time due to COVID-19 lockdown restrictions and his personal illness, specifically a back ailment that required treatment abroad. He relied on Sections 14 and 16 of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act and Rule 11 of the Tribunal Procedure Rules, asserting that sufficient cause existed for extension. He cited Parimal v Veena and Eriga Jos Perion v Vuzzi Victor & 2 others to support the principle that extension should be granted unless there is unexplained and inordinate delay.
Respondent
The respondent contended that the application was filed after the statutory six months period had expired. They argued that COVID-19 restrictions were lifted by 22nd June 2020, giving the applicant ample time to file before the deadline of 24th September 2020. The respondent maintained that the applicant failed to explain the delay between 22nd June and 11th December 2020, and therefore had not demonstrated sufficient cause for extension.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Section 16(1)(c) and Section 16(7), Tax Appeals Tribunal Act

    An application for review of a taxation decision must be lodged within thirty days of service of the decision, and any extension must be sought within six months of the decision.

  2. 02

    Rule 11(6), Tax Appeals Tribunal (Procedure) Rules

    The Tribunal may extend time if satisfied that the taxpayer was unable to file due to illness, absence from Uganda, or other reasonable cause.

  3. 03

    Mulindwa George William v Kisubika Joseph, Civil Appeal 12 of 2014

    Courts consider length of delay, reason for delay, chances of success, and prejudice to the other party when determining extension of time.

  4. 04

    Tight Security Limited v Chartis Uganda Insurance Co. Limited, Misc. Application 8 of 2014

    Good cause for extension is fact-specific and includes factors beyond mere delay, but must be supported by evidence.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The Tribunal held that its discretion to extend time for filing an application for review is strictly limited by statute to applications brought within six months of the taxation decision. The applicant was served with the objection decision on 24th March 2020, making the statutory deadline 24th September 2020. The application was filed on 11th December 2020, well outside the prescribed period. Although the applicant cited COVID-19 restrictions and illness as reasons for delay, the Tribunal found that the final lockdown restrictions were lifted on 22nd June 2020, leaving sufficient time to file before the deadline. The applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay after 22nd June 2020. The Tribunal concluded that it had no discretion to extend time beyond the statutory six months and that granting the application would prejudice the respondent. Accordingly, the application was dismissed with costs.

Obiter and limits

  • The meaning of 'good cause' for extension of time is broad and fact-dependent, but statutory limits on discretion are absolute.
  • The Tribunal cannot exercise discretion to extend time where the application is filed outside the statutory period, regardless of the circumstances.

Court disposition

application dismissed with costs

  • The application to extend time for filing an application for review is dismissed.
  • The applicant shall pay the costs of this application to the respondent.

Source and reliance status

Tax Appeals Tribunal (Uganda)

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Source document

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

Tax Appeals Tribunal (Uganda)

Judgment

[2021] UGTAT 15

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL AT KAMPALA MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 185 OF 2020

FARID MEGHANI ……………..……………………………………………. APPLICANT

VERSUS

UGANDA REVENUE AUTHORITY…………………………………………. RESPONDENT

BEFORE DR. ASA MUGENYI, DR. STEPHEN AKABWAY, MR. GEORGE MUGERWA

RULING

This ruling is in respect of an application to extend time within which to file an application to review the respondent's objection decision.

This application is brought under Sections 14 and 16 of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act, Rule 11 of the Tax Appeals Tribunal (Procedure) Rules and S. 98 of the Civil Procedure Act. It is for prayers that time for lodging an application for review to the tribunal be extended and for costs of the application.

The applicant was represented by Mr. Arnold Nogan Kimara, Ms. Martha Nuuna and Mr. David Oluka while the respondent was represented by Mr. Sam Kwerit.

This application is supported by two affidavits of the applicant which states the facts of this application as follows; That the applicant was issued two assessments. He made an objection on 27th December 2019. On 24th March 2020 the respondent served him with an objection decision. He was prevented from pursuing a review of the decision by the Presidential directives of COVD 19 on 18th March 2020 restricting social interaction and movement of private and public transport issued. The applicant also states that he went abroad for treatment of a back ailment in November 2019. He suffers great pain which has limited him.

The applicant submitted that an aggrieved tax payer may file an application before the Tribunal within 30 days of the objection decision under Sections 14 and 16 of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act. Under Rule 11 the taxpayer may file for extension of time. The applicant submitted that there is sufficient cause to extend time to file an application for review of the taxation decision. He cited Parimal v Veena, [2011] 3 SCC 545 where sufficient cause was defined. He also cited Eriga Jos Perion v Vuzzi Victor & 2 others HCMA 9/2017 where it was stated that an order for enlargement of time to file an appeal should ordinarily be allowed unless the applicant is guilty of unexplained and inordinate delay in seeking the indulgence of court. The applicant submitted that he was affected by the Lockdown which was effected on 21st March 2020 by the President. On 30th March 2020 the President effected a transport ban. The lockdown extended for three months.

In reply, the respondent submitted that the application was brought after the six months' statutory time limit. The respondent contended that the COVID-19 restrictions were lifted allowing the applicant to file an application within time. The final restrictions were removed by the President on 22nd June 2020. The applicant has not explained the reasons for the delay from 2nd June 2020 to 11th December 2020 which cannot be attributed to the COVID 19 restrictions. Therefore, he has not disclosed sufficient cause.

In rejoinder the applicant reiterated its submissions. He contended that not only was he affected by the COVID lockdown but also his back ailment. The applicant has demonstrated sufficient cause to file the application.

Having read the pleadings and submissions of the parties, this is the ruling of the Tribunal.

S. 16 (1) (c) of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act provides that an application to a tribunal for review of a taxation decision shall be lodged with the tribunal within thirty (30) days after the person making the application has been served with notice of the decision. S. 16 (7) of the same Act also provides that an application for review shall be made within six months of the taxation decision. Rule 11(6) provides that the tribunal may extend time if satisfied that the

taxpayer was unable to file the application because of illness, absence from Uganda or any other reasonable cause.

In order to qualify for extension of time there is need for the applicant to show that it has reasonable cause as to why the application was not filed in time. Courts have however provided guidance in determining what amounts to reasonable cause. In Tight Security Limited v Chartis Uganda Insurance Co. Limited Misc. Application 8 of 2014, the court held that;

"Good Cause relate to and include the factors which caused inability to file within the prescribed period of 30 days. The Phase 'good cause' is however wider and includes other causes other than causes of delay such as the public importance of an appeal and the court should not restrict the meaning of good cause. It should depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and prior precedents of appellate courts on extension of time."

In Mulindwa George William v Kisubika Joseph Civil Appeal 12 of 2014, The Supreme Court of Uganda set out the following factors that should be considered in an application for extension of time;

- i. The Length of delay. - ii. The reason for the delay. - iii. The possibility or chances of success. - iv. The degree of prejudice to the other party.

The applicant was served with an objection decision on the 24th March 2020. He had up to 24th April 2020 to file an application for review. On failure to lodge the application for review, the applicant has an extension of six months to file an application for extension of time. S. 16(7) of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act provides that an application for review shall be made within six months after the date of the taxation decision. Six months from 24th March 2020 ends on 24th September 2020. The applicant filed his application on 11th December 2020 which is outside the prescribed statutory six months period. The Tribunal can only exercise its discretion if an application for extension of time is brought within the statutory six months period prescribed by law. After that it has no discretion to exercise. The lockdown was finally lifted on the 22nd June 2020. The applicant has time from 22nd June 2020 to 24th September 2020 to file an application for review. The Tribunal therefore notes that the length of delay by the applicant is beyond the time within which the tribunal can exercise its discretion. The reason for delay after 22nd June 2020 is wanting. To grant such an application would prejudice the respondent as it is out of time.

Taking the above into consideration, the Tribunal accordingly dismisses this application with costs.

Dated at Kampala this 29th day of January 2021.

DR. ASA MUGENYI DR. STEPHEN AKABWAY MR. GEORGE MUGERWA CHAIRMAN MEMBER MEMBER

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Parimal v Veena, [2011] 3 SCC 545

Case cited

Eriga Jos Perion v Vuzzi Victor & 2 others, HCMA 9/2017

Case cited

Tight Security Limited v Chartis Uganda Insurance Co. Limited, Misc. Application 8 of 2014

Case cited

Mulindwa George William v Kisubika Joseph, Civil Appeal 12 of 2014

Case cited

Tax Appeals Tribunal Act, Sections 14, 16

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Tax Appeals Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, Rule 11

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Civil Procedure Act, Section 98

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this JurisAssist collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.