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: 2 court collections
Last checked: 18 Sep 2026, 04:18 UTC

Results update automatically as you type.

Judge

Topic

Legal area

Court

Uganda decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters

16 Sept 2022

Tax Law [2022] UGCA 229

SWT Tanners Limited and 13 Others v Commissioner General Uganda Revenue Authority

SWT Tanners Limited and 13 Others v Commissioner General Uganda Revenue Authority (Civil Appeal No. 172 of 2019) [2022] UGCA 229 (16 September 2022)

Court: Court of Appeal of Uganda
Case number: Civil Appeal No. 172 of 2019
Judge: Cheborion, JA, Madrama, JA, Mulyagonja, JA

The Court of Appeal held that the imported rice in question was processed and, therefore, did not qualify as an exempt supply under the Second Schedule to the VAT Act. The value-added activities exceeded 5% of the total value, and the rice was not listed as an exempt import under the Fifth Schedule of the East African Community Customs Management Act. The VAT (Amendment) Act 2014 repealed the provision that previously zero-rated cereals grown, milled, or processed in Uganda, thereby subjecting both local and imported processed rice to 18% VAT. The court found no evidence of discrimination, as…

Source excerpt

Vat On Imported Goods
Tax Exemptions
Practice Notes
International Trade Treaties
Statutory Interpretation
Judicial Review Of Taxation

Read case analysis

21 Sept 2017

Civil Procedure [2017] EACJ 93

Magezi v National Medical Stores (Taxation Reference 1 of 2015)

Magezi v National Medical Stores (Taxation Reference 1 of 2015) [2017] EACJ 93 (21 September 2017) (First Instance Division)

Court: East African Court of Justice
Case number: Taxation Reference 1 of 2015
Judge: Jundu JA, Lenaola JA, Ntezilyayo JA

The Court held that the issue of alleged illegality in the procurement of the respondent's counsel's services was raised too late, without proper pleadings or evidence, and could not be determined at the taxation reference stage without violating principles of fair hearing and due process. The Court found that the Taxing Officer had properly exercised her discretion, applied the correct legal principles, and provided reasoned justification for the amounts awarded for instruction fees and disbursements. The applicant failed to demonstrate any error of law, principle, or manifest excessiveness…