Wakilii

Housing Finance Bank Ltd v Uganda Revenue Authority (Civil Appeal No. 22 of 2012)

Court of Appeal · [2020] UGCA 2035 · 2020 Appeal Struck Out ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Second appeal to the Court of Appeal from a High Court decision on appeal from the Tax Appeals Tribunal in a VAT dispute
Decision
Appeal struck out for want of jurisdiction, with costs to the respondent

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment
Cited — treatment unverified cited in 2 (treatment unverified) Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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 held by majority that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. Appellate jurisdiction is a creature of statute; neither the Value Added Tax Act nor the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act, enacted under article 152(3) of the Constitution, confers a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal from a High Court decision made on appeal from the Tax Appeals Tribunal. The general provisions of the Civil Procedure Act are procedural and do not create a right of appeal. The appellant had not sought the leave of the High Court or the Court of Appeal. The appeal was accordingly struck out with costs. Kakuru JA dissented, favouring grant of leave on the court's own motion.

Facts

Uganda Revenue Authority issued a VAT assessment against Housing Finance Bank in respect of earnings under three government housing projects: the Namuwongo Project, the Government Pool Houses Project, and the National Housing Pool Houses Project. Under each, the bank acted as an agent administering credit sales, collecting proceeds and executing mortgages, charging interest or commission. The bank objected, contending its services were exempt financial services. The Tax Appeals Tribunal ruled the services were financial services exempt from VAT and ordered a refund. On URA's appeal, the High Court (Commercial Division) reversed the Tribunal in part, holding that only the Namuwongo project involved the granting, negotiating and dealing required for exemption, while the other two projects lacked grant or negotiation. The bank appealed to the Court of Appeal, which confronted the threshold question of whether it had jurisdiction to hear a further appeal from a High Court decision on appeal from the Tax Appeals Tribunal.

Issues

  1. Whether the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a decision of the High Court made on appeal from the Tax Appeals Tribunal under the Value Added Tax Act and the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act.
  2. Whether the services rendered by the appellant under the three housing projects were financial services exempt from VAT under section 19 and Schedule 2 of the VAT Act.

Orders

  • The appeal is struck out with costs.

Key headnotes

Appellate Jurisdiction — Creature of Statute — No Inherent Appellate Jurisdiction
Appellate jurisdiction springs only from statute; there is no inherent appellate jurisdiction, and the Court of Appeal exercises only such jurisdiction as Parliament confers on it.
Tax Appeals — Right of Appeal to Court of Appeal — VAT Act and Tax Appeals Tribunal Act
Neither the Value Added Tax Act nor the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act, enacted under article 152(3) of the Constitution, confers a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal from a decision of the High Court made on appeal from the Tax Appeals Tribunal; the Court of Appeal therefore has no jurisdiction to hear such an appeal.
Civil Procedure Act — Procedural Provisions Do Not Confer Right of Appeal
The provisions of the Civil Procedure Act dealing with appeals are procedural and do not by themselves create a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal from a decision of the High Court.
Tax Appeals — Application for Review as Appeal — Third Appeal
An application for review of an objection decision lodged with the Tax Appeals Tribunal is in substance an appeal from the Commissioner General; consequently an appeal from the Tribunal to the High Court is a second appeal, and any further appeal to the Court of Appeal would require a certificate of great public or general importance under section 73 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Legislation cited (25)

  • Constitution of the Republic of Uganda art.134(2)
  • Constitution of the Republic of Uganda art.152(3)
  • Constitution of the Republic of Uganda art.126(3)(c)
  • Judicature Act Cap 13 s.10
  • Value Added Tax Act Cap 349 s.19
  • Value Added Tax Act Cap 349 s.11
  • Value Added Tax Act Cap 349 s.13(2)
  • Value Added Tax Act Cap 349 s.33A
  • Value Added Tax Act Cap 349 s.33B
  • Value Added Tax Act Cap 349 s.33C
  • Value Added Tax Act Cap 349 s.33D
  • Value Added Tax Act Cap 349 Schedule 2(1)(c)
  • Tax Appeals Tribunal Act Cap 345 s.1
  • Tax Appeals Tribunal Act Cap 345 s.16(2)
  • Tax Appeals Tribunal Act Cap 345 s.16(7)
  • Tax Appeals Tribunal Act Cap 345 s.18
  • Tax Appeals Tribunal Act Cap 345 s.25(4)
  • Tax Appeals Tribunal Act Cap 345 s.27
  • Civil Procedure Act Cap 71 s.72
  • Civil Procedure Act Cap 71 s.73
  • Civil Procedure Act s.82
  • Civil Procedure Act s.68
  • Court of Appeal Rules r.2(2)
  • Court of Appeal Rules r.42
  • Court of Appeal Rules r.6(2)(b)

Cases cited (1)

  • Attorney General v Shah (No. 4) [1971] EA 50
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.