Lugeya Samuel and Another v Uganda Revenue Authority (Civil Appeal No 115 of 2012)

Court of Appeal · [2019] UGCA 2122 · 2019 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Civil appeal from High Court dismissal of a representative suit for recovery of allegedly unlawfully deducted PAYE on terminal benefits

Decision

Appeal dismissed; High Court decision that PAYE on terminal benefits was lawfully deducted upheld

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions — always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that terminal and retrenchment benefits are taxable employment income within section 19(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, following the binding Supreme Court decision in URA v Siraje Hassan Kajura and the Court of Appeal's own decision in Katureebe Eridad and Wanzala Ivan v URA. The court further held that the payment came from the Government of Uganda through the divestiture account, not a third party, and that the withholding mechanism in section 19(6)/116 does not affect liability to tax, since income tax can be assessed and paid even where not withheld by an employer. No order as to costs was made.

Facts

The appellants sued in a representative capacity on their own behalf and on behalf of 903 former employees of Uganda Commercial Bank whose services were terminated in 1993 and 1994. They were paid terminal benefits, from which the respondent deducted approximately UGX 416 million as Pay As You Earn (PAYE). The appellants claimed this tax was unlawfully and illegally levied and sued for its recovery. They argued that the Privatisation Unit of the Ministry of Finance, which made the payments, was not their employer and therefore could not withhold PAYE under section 116 of the Income Tax Act, and that there was no proof the payment was made under an arrangement with Uganda Commercial Bank as required by section 19(6). The High Court dismissed the suit, holding the deduction lawful, and the appellants appealed.

Issues

Whether the deduction of PAYE from the appellants' terminal (retrenchment) benefits was lawful under the Income Tax Act.
Whether the Privatisation Unit of the Ministry of Finance was an employer of the appellants capable of withholding PAYE under section 116 of the Income Tax Act.

Orders

Appeal dismissed.
No order as to costs.

Key headnotes

Income Tax — Employment Income — Taxability of Terminal and Retrenchment Benefits

Terminal and retrenchment benefits received by an employee fall within the definition of employment income under section 19(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act and are taxable, save for the portion expressly exempted.

Income Tax — Withholding Tax — Effect of Non-Withholding on Tax Liability

Withholding of tax is merely a method of collecting income tax from employment income; income tax can still be assessed and paid even where it was not withheld by the employer, so the absence of a proper withholding arrangement does not defeat liability.

Income Tax — Source of Payment — Divestiture Proceeds Not a Third Party

Where costs of terminating employment are met by the Government of Uganda from the divestiture account managed by the Privatisation Unit on behalf of a divested employer, the payment is not made by a third party for the purposes of section 19(6) of the Income Tax Act.

Precedent — Binding Effect of Supreme Court Decisions on the Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal is bound by decisions of the Supreme Court, and where the Supreme Court overturns an earlier Court of Appeal decision, that earlier decision is no longer good law and must not be followed.

Legislation cited (5)

Income Tax Act s.19
Income Tax Act s.19(1)(a)
Income Tax Act s.19(6)
Income Tax Act s.21
Income Tax Act s.116

Cases cited (3)

Uganda Revenue Authority v Siraje Hassan Kajura (Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2015)
Katureebe Eridad and Wanzala Ivan v Uganda Revenue Authority (Civil Appeal No. 55 of 2012)
Uganda Revenue Authority v Siraje Hassan Kajura (Civil Appeal No. 26 of 2013)

Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.