Wakilii

Adraa Agriculture College v Uganda Revenue Authority [2025] UGTAT 14

Tribunal · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for temporary injunction arising from tax dispute settled through ADR
Decision
Application for temporary injunction dismissed for lack of jurisdiction

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains 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 Tax Appeals Tribunal dismissed the application for a temporary injunction restraining enforcement of a tax liability agreed under an ADR settlement. The Tribunal held it lacked jurisdiction to review ADR settlements, as appellate jurisdiction must be established by statute and no statutory provision confers such jurisdiction. The Applicant failed to establish a prima facie case because no serious question for trial can arise in a matter filed before a tribunal lacking jurisdiction to entertain it.

Outcome

Application for temporary injunction dismissed for lack of jurisdiction

Facts

Adraa Agriculture College, a trust entity engaged in education and training, was assessed for tax of UGX 110,294,946 by Uganda Revenue Authority in April 2024. The Applicant objected but the objection was disallowed in September 2024. The parties entered into Alternative Dispute Resolution and concluded a settlement agreement on 10 September 2024 whereby the Applicant agreed to pay UGX 61,378,928 in full and final settlement. The Applicant failed to pay and URA issued a third-party agency notice on 30 December 2024. The Applicant then filed TAT Application No. 05 of 2025 seeking review of the ADR settlement and this application for a temporary injunction restraining enforcement pending determination of the main application. The Applicant contended that URA erroneously recorded inter-bank transfers as donor income resulting in double-counting.

Issues

  1. Whether the temporary injunction should be issued restraining the Respondent from enforcing the tax demand pending determination of the main application.
  2. Whether the Tax Appeals Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain an appeal or review of an ADR settlement agreement.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Arbitration & ADR — ADR Settlement Agreements — Finality and Binding Nature
An ADR settlement agreement concluded under the Tax Procedure Code Act (ADR Procedure) Regulations 2023 is binding and enforceable against the parties and constitutes full and final settlement of the dispute, with no right of appeal or objection to the altered assessment arising from the settlement.
Administrative Law — Appellate Jurisdiction — Statutory Basis Required
Appellate jurisdiction must be specifically created by statute and cannot be inferred or implied. There is no such thing as inherent appellate jurisdiction.
Tax Law — Tax Appeals Tribunal — Jurisdiction over ADR Settlements
The Tax Appeals Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to entertain an appeal or review of an ADR settlement agreement where no statutory provision confers such jurisdiction, and accordingly no prima facie case can be established in such a matter.
Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunctions — Prima Facie Case Requirement
To establish a prima facie case for the grant of a temporary injunction, an applicant must show a triable issue raising a serious question for adjudication. No prima facie case can be established in a matter filed before a tribunal lacking jurisdiction to entertain it.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (13)

  • Kiyimba Kaggwa v Haji Abdul Katende (1985) HCB 43
  • Prof. Omolo Ndiege v Kyambogo University (HCMA No. 764 of 2014)
  • E.L.T Kiyimba-Kaggwa v Hajji Katende Abdunasser (Civil Suit No. 2109 of 1984)
  • Giella v Cassman Brown & Co Ltd [1973] EA 358
  • Shiv Construction v Endesha Enterprises Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 34 of 1992)
  • RTI Ltd v MUR Shipping BV
  • Photo Production Ltd v Securicor Transport Ltd [1980] AC 827
  • Kenya Commercial Finance Co Ltd v Afraha Education Society (2001) 1 EA 86
  • James Senkaaba v Ruth Kalyesubula (HCMA No. 329 of 2001)
  • James Musinguzi Garuga and Another v Dr. Chris Baryomunsi and 2 Others (Misc. Cause No. 817 of 2016)
  • American Cyanamid Company v Ethicon Ltd [1975] 1 All ER 504
  • Attorney General v Shah (No. 4) [1971] 1 EA 50
  • Baku Raphael Obudra & Another v Attorney General (SCCA No. 1 of 2005)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Adraa Agriculture College v Uganda Revenue Authority 2025 UGTAT 14 (1 September 2025)
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.