Uganda Case Law

East African Marine Transport Company Limited v Uganda Revenue Limited (TAT Application 16 of 2024)

East African Marine Transport Company Limited v Uganda Revenue Limited (TAT Application 16 of 2024) [2025] UGTAT 7 (30 April 2025)

Court

Tax Appeals Tribunal (Uganda)

Case number

TAT Application 16 of 2024

Judges

Crystal Kabajwara -Chairperson, Nambi, Panel Member, Najjemba

The Tribunal held that the ferry qualifies as machinery or equipment under the ordinary and literal meaning of those terms, as it consists of fixed and moving parts working together to perform the function of transporting cargo and is integral to the Applicant's logistics business. The Tribunal found that Paragraph 1(ae) of Schedule 3 of the VAT Act does not require machinery or equipment to be made from locally produced raw materials, as the provision offers alternatives using the conjunction 'or.' The Applicant met all statutory conditions for exemption: the supply was of machinery or equip…

Source excerpt

• Vat Exemption
• Definition Of Machinery
• Logistics Sector Investment
• Tax Incentives
• Contract Splitting
• Statutory Interpretation

Tendo & Another v Attorney General

Tendo & Another v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition 8 of 2021) [2024] UGCC 24 (22 November 2024)

Court

Constitutional Court of Uganda

Case number

Constitutional Petition 8 of 2021

Judge

Mulyagonja, JCC, Kihika, JA /JCC, Tibulya, JA/JCC, Kazibwe, JCC, Asa Mugenyi , JA/JCC

Sections 24, 26, and 27 of the Criminal Procedure Code Act do not contravene or are inconsistent with Articles 23(1) and (4), 28(1), and 44(c) of the Constitution, nor with Article 8A and Objective XXVIII of the National Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy, Article 9(1) of the ICCPR, or Article 6 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights. The provisions are not wide or ambiguous, as they are limited by the definition of cognisable offences and are subject to procedural safeguards, including the requirement to bring detainees before a magistrate without unnecessary de…

Source excerpt

• Preventive Arrest
• Personal Liberty
• Police Powers
• Fair Trial Rights
• International Human Rights
• Statutory Interpretation

Uganda Revenue Authority v Wipro Technologies PTY Limited

Uganda Revenue Authority v Wipro Technologies PTY Limited (Civil Appeal 47 of 2022) [2024] UGCommC 332 (25 October 2024)

Court

Commercial Court of Uganda

Case number

Civil Appeal 47 of 2022

Judge

Kahigi Asiimwe, J

The court held that Sections 22 and 30 of the VAT Act are clear and only apply in situations where a taxable supply has been made and a tax invoice issued to the recipient of the supply. In this case, no supply was made to MTN Uganda, and the credit notes issued by the Respondent were therefore not valid for the purposes of claiming a VAT refund. The Tribunal erred in law by focusing on the bonafide nature of the credit notes rather than their compliance with the statutory requirements. The appeal was upheld, the Tribunal's decision set aside, and costs awarded to the Appellant.

Source excerpt

• Vat Refund
• Credit Notes
• Taxable Supply
• Statutory Interpretation

Africa Broadcasting (U) Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority

Africa Broadcasting (U) Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (Civil Appeal 52 of 2020) [2024] UGCommC 326 (17 October 2024)

Court

Commercial Court of Uganda

Case number

Civil Appeal 52 of 2020

Judge

Abinyo, J

The court held that the supply of programs on DVDs by foreign suppliers to the appellant constitutes a supply of goods, not services, for VAT purposes. The Tribunal erred in its interpretation of the TATA case and the relevant statutory provisions. The right to exhibit in the media, which was incidental to the supply of DVDs, is a supply of goods under the VAT Act. The court applied the plain meaning rule and found that the customs classification of the DVDs under the Harmonized System confirms their status as goods. The court further held that the VAT Act definitions prevail over those in ot…

Source excerpt

• Vat On Imported Services
• Copyright In Broadcasting
• Statutory Interpretation
• Customs Valuation
• Intellectual Property Rights

Uganda Revenue Authority v K Files Limited

Uganda Revenue Authority v K Files Limited (Civil Appeal 28 of 2022) [2024] UGCommC 313 (11 October 2024)

Court

Commercial Court of Uganda

Case number

Civil Appeal 28 of 2022

Judge

Abinyo, J

The High Court partly allowed URA’s appeal, upheld liability issues in part, and remitted the tax dispute for reassessment for 1 July 2020 to 30 June 2021.

• Vat Assessment
• Tax Waivers
• Burden Of Proof
• Statutory Interpretation
• Vat-assessment
• Tax-payment-allocation

Allied Beverages Company Limited v Commissioner Uganda Revenue Authority

Allied Beverages Company Limited v Commissioner Uganda Revenue Authority (Civil Appeal 39 of 2022) [2024] UGCommC 301 (18 September 2024)

Court

Commercial Court of Uganda

Case number

Civil Appeal 39 of 2022

Judge

Harriet Grace Magala, J

The court held that the determining factor for VAT liability on cross-border services is the location where the services are finally consumed or used, not where they are performed. The VAT Act and Regulations, when read holistically, provide that services exported from Uganda and consumed outside Uganda qualify for zero-rating. The Service Agreement between the Appellant and TCCEC establishes that the consumer of the services is TCCEC, located in the USA, and the services are used for its business purposes outside Uganda. The court found that the Tribunal erred by focusing solely on the place…

Source excerpt

• Vat Export Services
• Destination Principle
• Statutory Interpretation
• Cross Border Transactions

African Institute Of Energy Governance (AFRIEGO) v Attorney General (Consitutional Petition 15 of 2020)

African Institute Of Energy Governance (AFRIEGO) v Attorney General (Consitutional Petition 15 of 2020) [2024] UGCC 30 (9 May 2024)

Court

Constitutional Court of Uganda

Case number

Consitutional Petition 15 of 2020

Judge

Mulyagonja, JCC, Buteera, JCC, Kibeedi Mutangula, JCC, Bamugemereire, JCC, Kihika, JA /JCC

The Constitutional Court dismissed AFIEGO’s petition, holding that the National Environment Act’s pollution-control licensing and assessment provisions are constitutional and do not authorize pollution.

• Right To Clean Environment
• Statutory Interpretation
• Pollution Control Licensing
• Environmental Impact Assessment
• Sustainable Development
• Constitutional-law

Legal and Human Rights Centre and Another v Attorney General of the United Republic of Tanzania

Legal and Human Rights Centre and Another v Attorney General of the United Republic of Tanzania (Reference No.19 of 2019) [2024] EACJ 5 (27 March 2024) (First Instance Division)

Court

East African Court of Justice

Case number

Reference No.19 of 2019

Judge

Masara PJ, Muhumuza J, Nyachae J, Nyawello DPJ, Wejuli J

The Court applied the three-tier test to the Written Laws (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 3) Act, 2019. First, it found that the limitations imposed by the Act are prescribed by law, with clear and accessible provisions and defined terms. Second, the Court determined that the objectives of the Act—addressing regulatory challenges, clarifying mandates, enhancing accountability, and aligning with international obligations—are pressing and substantial. Third, the Court held that the measures adopted are proportionate to the objectives, with adequate safeguards and redress mechanisms for aggrieve…

Source excerpt

• Treaty Compliance
• Public Participation
• Judicial Review
• Statutory Interpretation
• Good Governance
• Regulation Of Ngos

Radio One Limited T/a Radio One Kampala and 31 Others v Attorney General and Another (Originating Summons 3 of 2021)

Radio One Limited T/a Radio One Kampala and 31 Others v Attorney General and Another (Originating Summons 3 of 2021) [2024] UGHCCD 51 (1 February 2024)

Court

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Case number

Originating Summons 3 of 2021

Judge

Nambayo, J

The court found that the 2nd Defendant had no statutory mandate to levy trade license fees from the Plaintiffs, who are already licensed and regulated by the Uganda Communications Commission. The impugned statutory instrument was declared illegal, ultra vires, and amounted to double taxation, as established by prior unappealed court decisions. The Minister of Trade's communications and the Attorney General's admissions confirmed that radio and television services should have been excluded from the amendments. The Plaintiffs were entitled to a refund of all sums paid under the illegal levy, as…

Source excerpt

• Trade Licensing
• Double Taxation
• Statutory Interpretation
• Restitution Of Illegal Levies
• Representative Actions
• Judicial Review

Uganda Revenue Authority v Tamale & Co. Advocates

Uganda Revenue Authority v Tamale & Co. Advocates (Civil Appeal 11 of 2020) [2023] UGCommC 165 (29 December 2023)

Court

Commercial Court of Uganda

Case number

Civil Appeal 11 of 2020

Judge

Mutesi, J

The High Court held that VAT liability can arise before VAT registration where registration was required, and upheld an additional assessment against the respondent.

• Vat Liability
• Tax Assessment
• Effective Date Of Registration
• Statutory Interpretation
• Equitable Estoppel
• Vat-liability