Uganda Case Law

Uganda Revenue Authority v Prof.Emmanuel Tumusiime Mutebile & 7 Others (Trustees of Bank of Uganda)

Uganda Revenue Authority v Prof.Emmanuel Tumusiime Mutebile & 7 Others (Trustees of Bank of Uganda) (Civil Appeal 89 of 2021) [2023] UGHCCD 372 (5 June 2023)

Court

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Case number

Civil Appeal 89 of 2021

Judge

Phillip Odoki, J

The High Court dismissed URA’s appeal, holding that the Bank of Uganda scheme is a settlor trust because the settlor has a reversionary interest in the trust.

• Income Tax Liability
• Trusts And Settlor Trusts
• Tax Exemptions
• Retirement Benefit Schemes
• Income-tax
• Settlor-trusts

Luwaluwa Investments Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (Application 39 of 2021)

Luwaluwa Investments Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (Application 39 of 2021) [2022] UGTAT 30 (22 September 2022)

Court

Tax Appeals Tribunal (Uganda)

Case number

Application 39 of 2021

Judges

Mugenyi, Chairperson, Ali, Panel Member, Katwe

The majority of the Tribunal held that Section 118B(2) of the Income Tax Act is clear and unambiguous in requiring a resident person who purchases a business asset to withhold tax at the prescribed rate, regardless of whether the seller is the owner or a financial institution acting as a mortgagee. The Tribunal found that the property in question, Afrique Suites, qualified as a business asset because it was used as a hotel, and the applicant, as purchaser, was obligated to withhold tax. The Tribunal rejected the applicant's arguments regarding statutory exemptions and ambiguity, holding that…

Source excerpt

• Withholding Tax
• Mortgaged Property Sale
• Business Asset Definition
• Statutory Interpretation
• Tax Exemptions

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 The VAT (Amendment) Act 2014 repealed the provision that previously zero-rated cereals grown, milled, or processed in Uganda, thereby subjecting both local and imported processed rice to 18% VAT.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

Katureebe and Another v Uganda Revenue Authority

Katureebe and Another v Uganda Revenue Authority (Civil Appeal No 55 of 2012) [2018] UGCA 247 (11 October 2018)

Court

Court of Appeal of Uganda

Case number

Civil Appeal No 55 of 2012

Judge

Kakuru, JA, Kiryabwire, JA, Madrama, JA

The Court of Appeal held that terminal benefits paid to the appellants, former employees of British American Tobacco (Uganda) Ltd, were taxable as employment income under section 19 of the Income Tax Act. The court found that the payments did not qualify as pension or as a lump sum from a resident retirement fund, and the appellants were not public service officers holding pensionable office under the Pensions Act. The court followed the binding Supreme Court decision in Uganda Revenue Authority v Hassan Kajura, which established that terminal benefits are taxable. The payment by the Privatis…

Source excerpt

• Income Tax
• Employment Income
• Terminal Benefits
• Tax Exemptions
• Public Enterprise Divestiture

Kajura v Dairy Corporation Limited and Another

Kajura v Dairy Corporation Limited and Another (Civil Suit No.117 of 2009) [2012] UGHC 439 (16 December 2012)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

Civil Suit No.117 of 2009

Judge

Musoke, J

The High Court held that PAYE deducted from former employees’ terminal benefits was unlawful and ordered a refund, damages, interest, and costs.

• Pay As You Earn Taxation
• Terminal Benefits
• Tax Exemptions
• Statutory Corporations
• Pensions Act Interpretation
• Paye

Ketan Morjaria & Raji v The Commissioner General URA

Ketan Morjaria & Raji v The Commissioner General URA (Miscellaneous Application No. 628 of 2010) [2011] UGCommC 208 (27 January 2011)

Court

Commercial Court of Uganda

Case number

Miscellaneous Application No. 628 of 2010

The court found that the applicants had established a prima facie case, as there was a genuine legal controversy regarding whether the capital gain from the sale of shares was exempt from tax under the Income Tax Act prior to 1 July 2010. The court held that the suit was neither frivolous nor vexatious and merited judicial consideration. However, the court doubted whether irreparable harm would result from enforcement of the assessment, as any overpaid tax could be refunded with interest. The balance of convenience favored granting the injunction to maintain the status quo pending resolution…

Source excerpt

• Income Tax Assessment
• Capital Gains Tax
• Temporary Injunctions
• Parallel Proceedings
• Tax Exemptions

International Bible Students Association v Uganda Revenue Authority (HCT-00-CV-CS-0209 OF 2008) (HCT-00-CV-CS-0209 OF 2008)

International Bible Students Association v Uganda Revenue Authority (HCT-00-CV-CS-0209 OF 2008) (HCT-00-CV-CS-0209 OF 2008) [2009] UGHC 142 (29 June 2009)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

HCT-00-CV-CS-0209 OF 2008

The High Court of Uganda held that Jehovah’s Witness volunteers served by the plaintiff were not employees and that their modest support was not taxable employment income.

• Income Tax
• Employment Relationships
• Charitable Organisations
• Pay As You Earn
• Tax Exemptions
• Income-tax

Commissioner General of Uganda Revenue Authority v Meera Investments Limited

Commissioner General of Uganda Revenue Authority v Meera Investments Limited (Civil Appeal No. 03 of 2007) [2007] UGCA 77 (15 October 2007)

Court

Court of Appeal of Uganda

Case number

Civil Appeal No. 03 of 2007

Judge

Mukasa-Kikonyogo, DCJ, Okello, JA, Twinomujuni, JA

The Court of Appeal held that the claim was not purely a tax dispute, and that the Commissioner General of URA could be sued in her official name. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

• Tax Exemptions
• Certificate Of Incentives
• Capacity To Sue
• Vicarious Liability
• Trespass To Chattels
• Tax-law

Total Uganda Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority

Total Uganda Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2002) [2002] UGCA 2 (22 April 2002)

Court

Court of Appeal of Uganda

Case number

Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2002

The Court of Appeal held that the incentives exemption under section 168(21) of Uganda’s Income Tax Act did not extend to withholding tax on dividends paid to non-resident shareholders.

• Withholding Tax
• Tax Exemptions
• Investment Incentives
• Non Resident Shareholders
• Withholding-tax
• Tax-exemptions

Capital Finance Corporation Ltd v Uganda Revenue Authority

Capital Finance Corporation Ltd v Uganda Revenue Authority (Civil Appeal No. 43 of 2000) [2001] UGCA 3 (2 December 2001)

Court

Court of Appeal of Uganda

Case number

Civil Appeal No. 43 of 2000

The Court of Appeal held that Capital Finance’s investment incentive certificate covered all its business activities and allowed its appeal against tax assessment.

• Tax Exemptions
• Investment Incentives
• Credit Institutions
• Tax Appeals
• Corporate Taxation
• Tax-exemptions