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

Kampala Capital City Authority v Ham Enterprises (U) Limited

Kampala Capital City Authority v Ham Enterprises (U) Limited (Miscellaneous Cause 13 of 2023) [2024] UGCommC 174 (3 May 2024)

Court

Commercial Court of Uganda

Case number

Miscellaneous Cause 13 of 2023

Judge

Tumusiime Rubagumya, J

The High Court held it had jurisdiction to entertain the summary warrant application under the Local Governments (Rating) Act, but granted recovery only for two properties.

• Summary Warrant
• Property Rates
• Pecuniary Jurisdiction
• Valuation List Publication
• Tax Incentives
• Ownership Liability

Total Uganda Ltd v Uganda Revenue Authority

Total Uganda Ltd v Uganda Revenue Authority (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2001) [2001] UGCommC 5 (31 October 2001)

Court

Commercial Court of Uganda

Case number

Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2001

The court held that the appellant, Total Uganda Limited, was not the holder of the certificate of incentives within the meaning of the Investment Code and the relevant transitional provisions of the Income Tax Act. The certificate was issued to the nonresident shareholders, not to the company itself. The law required the holder of the certificate to make an election for continuation of exemptions, and only the holder could benefit from the exemption on dividends on shares issued by the holder. The appellant, as a statutory tax collector, was not entitled to elect or benefit from the exemption…

Source excerpt

• Tax Incentives
• Investment Code Certificates
• Withholding Tax
• Corporate Tax Exemptions
• Foreign Investment
• Statutory Interpretation