Uganda Case Law

Ejidra and Another v Ezaale and Another (Application No. TAT 21 of 2022)

Ejidra and Another v Ezaale and Another (Application No. TAT 21 of 2022) [2023] UGTAT 4 (23 April 2023)

Court

Tax Appeals Tribunal (Uganda)

Case number

Application No. TAT 21 of 2022

Judges

Katwe, Panel Member, Mugenyi, Chairperson

The Tribunal found that neither applicant appeared in court to testify or provide evidence of coercion or violation of rights. The 1st applicant, owner of the vehicle, signed settlement forms admitting to customs offences and paid the assessed taxes and penalties, thereby withdrawing any pending review application before the Commissioner. The 2nd applicant, consignee of the goods, did not appear or provide a valid power of attorney, and his appeal for leniency did not constitute a proper application for review under Section 229 of the EACCMA. The Tribunal held that the application disclosed n…

Source excerpt

• Customs Seizure
• Penal Tax Assessment
• Cause Of Action
• Review Of Commissioner Decision

Eddie Kazzi v Uganda Revenue Authority (Taxation Application No. 3 of 2017)

Eddie Kazzi v Uganda Revenue Authority (Taxation Application No. 3 of 2017) [2019] UGTAT 2 (13 February 2019)

Court

Tax Appeals Tribunal (Uganda)

Case number

Taxation Application No. 3 of 2017

Judges

Ali, Panel Member, Mugerwa, Mugenyi, Chairperson

The Tribunal dismissed Eddie Kazzi’s challenge to the seizure and sale of rice, holding the application was time-barred and that he lacked locus standi.

• Customs Seizure
• Limitation Periods
• Locus Standi
• Forfeiture Of Goods
• Notice Of Claim
• Tax Dispute Resolution

Grands Lacs Supplier S.A.R.L and Others v Attorney General of the Republic of Burundi

Grands Lacs Supplier S.A.R.L and Others v Attorney General of the Republic of Burundi [2018] EACJ 129 (19 June 2018) (First Instance Division)

Court

East African Court of Justice

Judge

Jundu JA, Lenaola JA, Mugenyi PJ, Ntezilyayo JA, Nyawello JA

The Court found that the Respondent, through its agents, unlawfully seized the Applicants' goods in transit without due process or compliance with Sections 213 and 214 of the East African Community Customs Management Act 2004, thereby breaching the principle of the rule of law enshrined in Articles 6(d) and 7(2) of the Treaty. The Court determined that the official communication of seizure occurred on 30th July 2016, making the Reference timely. While the Court recognized its jurisdiction to award appropriate remedies, it dismissed the claim for special damages due to insufficient proof and i…

Source excerpt

• State Liability
• Rule Of Law Violation
• Customs Seizure
• Compensation For Unlawful Seizure
• Cross Border Trade
• Judicial Discretion In Damages