Wakilii

Capital Shoppers Ltd 4 Others v Uganda Revenue Authority (MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO 265 OF 2020)

High Court · [2020] UGHCCD 154 · 2020 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for temporary injunction arising out of judicial review proceedings
Decision
Application for temporary injunction dismissed; underlying judicial review proceedings to continue

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 High Court dismissed the application for temporary injunction restraining URA from implementing the EFRIS system. The court held that it should not restrain a public body from executing statutory duties under validly enacted legislation, that public interest in revenue collection outweighs private commercial interests, and that courts cannot grant injunctions that suspend the operation of legislation that has not been declared unconstitutional. The applicants failed to establish that the balance of convenience favoured granting the injunction.

Outcome

Application for temporary injunction dismissed; underlying judicial review proceedings to continue

Facts

The applicants are five VAT-registered supermarkets selected by URA as pilot candidates for implementation of the Electronic Fiscal Receipting and Invoicing Solutions (EFRIS) system. URA sent letters between February 2018 and May 2020 informing the applicants of their selection for the pilot phase commencing 15 May 2020, with full rollout scheduled for 1 July 2020. The applicants objected to their selection on grounds of discrimination, lack of legal basis, and absence of clear implementation strategy. On 23 June 2020, after the case was filed, URA gazetted Statutory Instrument No. 82 of 2020 and General Notice No. 595 of 2020 designating all VAT-registered taxpayers as mandatory users of e-invoicing and e-receipting systems under section 73A of the Tax Procedures Code Act as amended in 2018. The applicants sought temporary injunctions restraining implementation of EFRIS until all businesses were onboarded, arguing discriminatory and selective enforcement.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicants satisfied the conditions for grant of a temporary injunction restraining implementation of the Electronic Fiscal Receipting and Invoicing Solutions (EFRIS) system.
  2. Whether the court should grant an injunction restraining a public body from performing its statutory duties under validly enacted legislation.
  3. Whether public interest considerations outweigh the private interests of the applicants in determining the grant of an injunction against a revenue collection measure.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Judicial Review — Temporary Injunctions — Restraint of Public Bodies from Exercising Statutory Powers
Courts should be reluctant to restrain a public body from doing what the law allows it to do or to execute its core mandate or function, as the grant of an injunction may perpetrate breach of the law which the public body is mandated to uphold or apply.
Injunctions — Suspension of Legislation — Constitutional Limits on Judicial Power
Courts cannot as a matter of law grant an injunction which will have the effect of suspending the operation of legislation that has not been declared unconstitutional, as suspending the operation of validly enacted law without hearing evidence is a very serious matter.
Revenue Collection — Interim Relief — Public Interest Considerations
Courts should not restrain a revenue authority from collecting revenue or managing revenue collections save under very exceptional circumstances, as the grant of an injunction against revenue collection should be an exception and not a rule.
Temporary Injunctions — Balance of Convenience — Public Interest versus Private Rights
Where there is a conflict between the interest of the public at large and the interest of a few individuals, the interest of the public at large must prevail over the interest of the few individuals, and public interest considerations justify refusal to grant a temporary injunction where a public project for the beneficial interest of the public is sought to be delayed.
Tax Legislation — Commissioner's Power to Specify Mandatory Taxpayers
Where statute grants the Commissioner power to specify by gazette notice taxpayers for whom it shall be mandatory to issue e-invoices or e-receipts, and the Commissioner has lawfully exercised that power to gazette all VAT-registered taxpayers, such taxpayers are statutorily bound to comply and courts should not grant injunctions excluding applicants from application of the law.

Legislation cited (10)

Cases cited (16)

  • Giella v Cassman Brown & Co Ltd [1973] EA 358
  • Robert Kavuma v Hotel International Ltd [1993] 11 KALR 73
  • Behangana Domaro and Another v Attorney General (Constitutional Application No. 73 of 2010)
  • Titus Tayebwa v Fred Bogere and Eric Mukasa (Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2009)
  • Yahaya Kariisa v Attorney General and Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1994)
  • Equator International Distributors Ltd v Beiersdorf East Africa Ltd and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 1127 of 2014)
  • Shiv Construction v Endesha Enterprises Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 34 of 1992)
  • Uganda National Bureau of Standards v Ren Publishers Ltd and Multiplex Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 635 of 2019)
  • Alcohol Association of Uganda and Others v Attorney General and Uganda Revenue Authority (Miscellaneous Application No. 744 of 2019)
  • R v Secretary of State for Transport ex parte Factortame Ltd [1990] 2 AC 85
  • Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Limited & Another v The Governor of Lagos State & Others 5 ALL NTC- Lagos High Court
  • ACP Bakaleke Siraj v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Application No. 551 of 2018)
  • Regent Oil Co Ltd v JT Leavesley (Lichfield) Ltd [1966] 1 WLR 1210
  • Kennaway v Thompson [1981] QB 88
  • Asstt. Collector, C.E, Chandan Nagar v Dunlop India Ltd., [1985]AIR SC 330
  • AMERICAN CYNAMIDE (Supra)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Capital Shoppers Ltd 4 Others v Uganda Revenue Authority (MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO 265 OF 2020) 2020 UGHCCD 154 (10 July 2020)
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.