Wakilii

Africa Global Logistics Uganda Ltd v Uganda Revenue Authority [2025] UGTAT 15

Tribunal · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to Tax Appeals Tribunal challenging ADR decision upholding VAT assessment, met with preliminary objection on jurisdiction and time bar
Decision
Application 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 (majority) held that it lacks appellate jurisdiction to review decisions of the Uganda Revenue Authority's Alternative Dispute Resolution Committee. Section 14(1) of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act, enacted in 1998, confers jurisdiction only over decisions of the Commissioner General, not over ADR decisions which arose under the Tax Procedure Code Act 2016. Appellate jurisdiction must be expressly conferred by statute and cannot be inferred. Application dismissed with costs. Dissenting opinion would have found the application timely and properly before the tribunal.

Outcome

Application dismissed for lack of jurisdiction

Facts

Africa Global Logistics Uganda Ltd, a customs clearing and freight forwarding company, was issued an administrative VAT assessment of UGX 562,362,124 on 6 March 2012 for the period May to December 2011, based on a variance between output VAT declared and input VAT claimed by its customers. The applicant filed an objection ten years later on 1 November 2022. The respondent disallowed the objection on 13 April 2023. The applicant then applied for Alternative Dispute Resolution on 25 April 2023. The ADR Committee delivered its decision on 19 April 2024, maintaining the entire assessment. The applicant filed the instant application with the Tax Appeals Tribunal on 16 May 2024. The respondent raised a preliminary objection that the application was filed outside the 30-day statutory period and that the applicant had not paid the mandatory 30% of the tax in dispute. The applicant paid 30% (UGX 168,708,637) on 20 June 2024.

Issues

  1. Whether the Tax Appeals Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from a decision of the Uganda Revenue Authority's Alternative Dispute Resolution Committee.
  2. Whether the application is time barred under Section 16(1)(c) of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act.
  3. Whether the application is bad in law for failure to pay the statutory 30% of the tax in dispute prior to lodging the application.

Orders

  • Application dismissed with costs.
  • Tribunal finds it lacks jurisdiction to entertain appeals from ADR Committee decisions.

Rules and key headnotes

Tax Appeals Tribunal — Jurisdiction — Appellate Jurisdiction over ADR Decisions
The Tax Appeals Tribunal has no appellate jurisdiction to review decisions of the Uganda Revenue Authority's Alternative Dispute Resolution Committee. Section 14(1) of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act, enacted in 1998, confers jurisdiction only over decisions of the Commissioner General of the Uganda Revenue Authority. The ADR procedure was introduced by Section 26(11) of the Tax Procedure Code Act in 2016. Appellate jurisdiction must be expressly conferred by statute and cannot be inferred or implied.
Appellate Jurisdiction — Statutory Conferral — No Inherent Appellate Jurisdiction
There is no such thing as inherent appellate jurisdiction. Appellate jurisdiction or the power to hear appeals must be established by statute and must be specifically created by law. It cannot be inferred or implied. A statutory provision conferring appellate jurisdiction must expressly state that a tribunal or court shall have jurisdiction to hear matters on appeal from a specific tribunal or court.
Alternative Dispute Resolution — Effect on Appeal Timelines — Regulation 4(3)
Where Alternative Dispute Resolution is commenced between a taxpayer and the Commissioner, the time within which the taxpayer is required to file an application with the Tax Appeals Tribunal shall not be affected by the Alternative Dispute Resolution procedure. The 30-day period for filing an application to the tribunal runs from the date of the objection decision, not from the date of the ADR decision.
Statutory Timelines — Mandatory Compliance — Substantive Law
Timelines set by statutes are matters of substantive law and not mere technicalities and must be strictly complied with. A person dissatisfied with an objection decision must lodge an application with the Tax Appeals Tribunal within 30 days after being served with the notice of objection decision.

Legislation cited (13)

  • Tax Appeals Tribunal Act s.14(1)
  • Tax Appeals Tribunal Act s.15
  • Tax Appeals Tribunal Act s.16(1)(c)
  • Tax Appeals Tribunal Act s.16(7)
  • Tax Procedure Code Act s.24(1)
  • Tax Procedure Code Act s.25(1)
  • Tax Procedure Code Act s.26(4)
  • Tax Procedure Code Act s.26(6)
  • Tax Procedure Code Act s.26(9)
  • Tax Procedure Code Act s.26(11)
  • Tax Procedure Code Act s.27(1)
  • Tax Procedure Code (Alternative Dispute Resolution) Regulations 2023 reg.4(3)
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.6 r.28

Cases cited (11)

  • Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd [1969] EA 696
  • Uganda Revenue Authority v Uganda Consolidated Properties Ltd (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 75)
  • Cable Corporation (U) Ltd v. Uganda Revenue Authority (supra)
  • CIC Africa (Uganda) Ltd v Uganda Revenue Authority (High Court Civil Appeal No. 100 of 2023)
  • Uganda Projects Implementation and Management Centre v Uganda Revenue Authority (Constitutional Appeal No. 2 of 1999)
  • Al Noor Tiles and Ceramics Ltd v Uganda Revenue Authority (TAT Misc Application No. 103 of 2023)
  • Sogea Satom Uganda Ltd v Uganda Revenue Authority (TAT Application No. 22 of 2023)
  • Attorney-General v Shah (No 4) [1971] 1 EA 50
  • Baku Raphael Obudra & Another v Attorney General (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2005)
  • Conta Plast Ventures Limited v. Uganda Revenue Authority
  • Boney Katatumba v Waheed Karim (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 27 of 2007)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Africa Global Logistics Uganda Ltd v Uganda Revenue Authority 2025 UGTAT 15 (12 August 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.