Real Task Agencies Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority and Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 069 of 2023) [2025] UGHCCD 61 (21 May 2025)
Court
HC: Civil Division (Uganda)
Case number
Miscellaneous Cause No. 069 of 2023
Judge
Simon Peter M. Kinobe, J
The High Court dismissed a judicial review challenge to tax assessments, holding that the dispute concerned the merits of a taxation decision and belonged before the Tax Appeals Tribunal.
Uganda Revenue Authority v Roche Transport & Logistics Uganda Limited (Miscellaneous Application 2926 of 2023) [2024] UGCommC 60 (23 January 2024)
Court
Commercial Court of Uganda
Case number
Miscellaneous Application 2926 of 2023
Judge
Ocaya, J
The High Court granted a conditional stay of execution pending appeal, requiring the Uganda Revenue Authority to pay 70% of the collected sum as security.
CIC Africa (Uganda) Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (TAT Application 275 of 2022) [2023] UGTAT 15 (6 October 2023)
Court
Tax Appeals Tribunal (Uganda)
Case number
TAT Application 275 of 2022
Judges
Mugenyi, Chairperson, Mugerwa, Panel Member, Ali
The Tribunal held the tax review application was time barred because ADR did not suspend the statutory filing deadline, and dismissed the case with costs.
Electric Power Services Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (Application 4 of 2022) [2023] UGTAT 19 (8 August 2023)
Court
Tax Appeals Tribunal (Uganda)
Case number
Application 4 of 2022
Judges
Mugenyi, Chairperson, Akabway, Panel Member, Ali
The Tribunal upheld a preliminary objection and dismissed the application after finding no sufficient evidence that the applicant had paid 30% of the disputed tax.
The Tribunal held that payment of 30% of the tax assessed or that part not in dispute is a statutory prerequisite for lodging an application before the Tax Appeals Tribunal. The applicant paid only Shs. 300,407,594, which is significantly less than the required Shs. 24,275,687,937.9 (30% of the disputed tax). The applicant did not dispute this fact and failed to comply with the mandatory requirement under Section 15(1) of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act. The Tribunal found that non-payment of the required amount deprives the applicant of the right to access the Tribunal, as it demonstrates lack…
The Tribunal found that the application for a second temporary injunction was an abuse of process, as a prior injunction was already in force regarding a different consignment. The applicant failed to seek variation or vacation of the first injunction or to institute contempt proceedings if the first injunction was not respected. Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the applicant had not established a prima facie case, as it had not filed an objection to the WHT assessment or the revocation of the exemption certificate, and thus there was no objection decision for the Tribunal to review. The r…
Uganda Revenue Authority v Iliso Consulting (PTY) Limited & Another (Miscellaneous Application 34 of 2023) [2023] UGTAT 30 (27 April 2023)
Court
Tax Appeals Tribunal (Uganda)
Case number
Miscellaneous Application 34 of 2023
Judges
Ali, Panel Member, Mugerwa, Katwe
The tribunal held that neither the Tax Appeals Tribunals Act nor its Procedure Rules expressly provide for the addition of parties, but by virtue of Section 22(3) of the Act and Rule 30 of the Procedure Rules, the Civil Procedure Rules apply. Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules empowers the tribunal to add a party whose presence is necessary for the effective and complete settlement of all questions in dispute. The tribunal found that the second respondent is a distinct legal entity and that its joinder is necessary to determine the correct taxpayer liable for the assessment and t…
The Elma Philanthropies (E.A) Ltd v URA (Miscellaneous Application No. 22 of 2021) [2022] UGCommC 10 (24 January 2022)
Court
Commercial Court of Uganda
Case number
Miscellaneous Application No. 22 of 2021
Judge
Gaswaga, J
The court found that the applicant demonstrated a real risk of substantial and irreparable loss if execution proceeded, as the sum sought by the respondent constituted the applicant's working capital and would cripple its operations and those of supported NGOs. However, the court held that the application was not filed without unreasonable delay, and payment of 30% of the disputed tax did not satisfy the requirement for security for due performance. The court determined that, in the interest of justice and to avoid rendering the appeal nugatory, a conditional stay of execution would be grante…
The Court found that the Applicant and his family, though not parties to the proceedings leading to the Supreme Court judgments, faced a real and imminent risk of irreparable harm due to the potential execution of those judgments, which could result in the confiscation and sale of their assets. The Court held that the conditions of urgency and extreme gravity under Article 27(2) of the Protocol were satisfied, as execution could occur at any time before a final decision on the merits. The Court also noted that, while the companies are separate legal entities, the enforcement actions threatene…
