Uganda Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

Uganda Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page: 1 court collection
Last checked: 18 Sep 2026, 03:07 UTC

Results update automatically as you type.

Judge

Topic

Legal area

Court

Uganda decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters

29 Dec 2023

Tax Law [2023] UGCommC 163

Uganda Revenue Authority v Agaba

Uganda Revenue Authority v Agaba (Civil Appeal 32 of 2021) [2023] UGCommC 163 (29 December 2023)

Court: Commercial Court of Uganda
Case number: Civil Appeal 32 of 2021
Judge: Mutesi, J

The court held that the statutory hierarchy of customs valuation methods under Section 122(1) and the 4th Schedule of the EACCMA is mandatory, with the transaction value method as the primary approach. Administrative rulings issued under delegated authority cannot amend or override this hierarchy. The Administrative Ruling of 2013 does not, and cannot, prescribe the fallback method as the primary method for used goods; it merely recognizes practical challenges in applying the initial five methods. The appellant failed to demonstrate any actual complexities or contest the genuineness of the re…

Source excerpt

Customs Valuation
Transaction Value Method
Fallback Method
Administrative Rulings
Import Duties
Judicial Review

Read case analysis

10 Jun 2020

Tax Law [2020] UGCommC 171

International School of Uganda Limited v The Commissioner General, Uganda Revenue Authority

International School of Uganda Limited v The Commissioner General, Uganda Revenue Authority (Civil Appeal 3 of 2018) [2020] UGCommC 171 (10 June 2020)

Court: Commercial Court of Uganda
Case number: Civil Appeal 3 of 2018
Judge: Wangutusi, J

The court found that the appellant met all statutory requirements for exemption under section 2(bb) of the Income Tax Act. The appellant is a company limited by guarantee, its income and assets are applied solely to its educational objectives, and no private benefit is conferred on members or directors. The tribunal erred by focusing on private ownership, funding, and management as determinative of public character, contrary to the statutory test. The court held that public character is established by serving the public and not conferring private benefit, regardless of ownership. The surplus…