Wakilii

Cayman Consults Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority [2026] UGTAT 22

Tribunal · 2026 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application challenging PAYE assessment issued by Uganda Revenue Authority
Decision
PAYE assessments vacated; refund ordered with interest; costs awarded to Applicant

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 Tribunal held that Cayman Consults Limited was not the employer of personnel deployed under a Project Implementation Agreement with Trigyn Technologies Inc. to provide staffing support to UN missions. The Applicant functioned as a payroll and administrative intermediary, while substantive employment incidents—recruitment, operational supervision, deployment, control of work performance, and termination—rested with Trigyn and the UN. The Respondent relied on expired contracts, failed to produce bank statements used in computing the assessment, and departed from its 2018 position without establishing new information. The PAYE assessments of Shs. 42,331,904,361 for 2019–2022 were set aside.

Outcome

PAYE assessments vacated; refund ordered with interest; costs awarded to Applicant

Facts

Cayman Consults Limited entered into a Project Implementation Agreement with Trigyn Technologies Inc., a US-based company, to provide staffing and payroll management services to UN missions across multiple African jurisdictions. In 2018, URA conducted an audit and issued a management letter declaring that personnel managed by the Applicant on behalf of Trigyn were non-employees for income tax purposes and their income was exempt under Section 21 of the Income Tax Act. The Applicant relied on this guidance and did not collect or remit PAYE. In 2023, URA conducted a further audit and issued PAYE assessments totalling Shs. 42,331,904,361 for 2019–2022, asserting that the Applicant was the employer of the deployed personnel. The Applicant objected on grounds that the personnel were not its employees, the 2019 assessments were time-barred, tax was charged on non-residents, and it was bound by the 2018 management letter. URA disallowed the objections, and the Applicant filed this application.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant was the employer of the deployed personnel.
  2. Whether the Applicant is liable to pay PAYE tax amounting to UGX 42,331,904,361 as assessed.
  3. Whether the Applicant is entitled to the reliefs sought.

Orders

  • The Respondent's objection decisions dated 21st, 24th, 26th and 28th June 2024 are set aside.
  • The PAYE assessments amounting to Shs. 42,331,904,361 for the period 2019-2022 are vacated.
  • The Respondent is directed to refund to the Applicant any sums paid toward the disputed assessments, including the statutory 30% deposit, together with simple interest at a rate of 2 per cent per month from the date of payment of the deposit.
  • Costs of this application are awarded to the Applicant.

Rules and key headnotes

PAYE — Employer-Employee Relationship — Determination
To determine whether an employer-employee relationship exists for PAYE purposes, the court must consider the power to select or recruit employees, the right to pay wages or salary, the ability to control the method of doing work, and the right of suspension or termination.
PAYE — Payroll Intermediary — Substantive Employment Incidents
Where an entity functions principally as a payroll and administrative intermediary, and the substantive incidents of employment—including recruitment, operational supervision, deployment, control of work performance, and termination—rest with third parties, the entity is not the employer for PAYE purposes.
PAYE — Expired Contracts — Assessment Period
Expired employment contracts cannot, either in fact or in law, establish an employment relationship in a subsequent, distinct assessment period. PAYE liability arises in relation to employment income earned and paid within a specific year of income, and the existence of an employment relationship must be established for the particular period under assessment.
Legitimate Expectation — Revenue Authority Guidance — Reliance
Interpretations adopted and communicated by the Uganda Revenue Authority in execution of its statutory mandate create legitimate expectations capable of being relied upon by taxpayers unless lawfully altered or revoked. A taxpayer is entitled to rely on a management letter issued by URA unless that letter is formally revoked or new information justifies a change in position.
Additional Assessments — Limitation Period — New Information
Under Section 25(2) of the Tax Procedures Code Act, additional assessments outside the ordinary limitation period are permitted only where there is fraud, willful neglect, or discovery of new information. Where the revenue authority fails to establish the existence of new information beyond what was previously supplied by the taxpayer, the assessment is time-barred.
PAYE — Non-Residents — Source of Employment Income
Under Section 78(d) of the Income Tax Act, employment income is sourced in Uganda only to the extent that the employment is exercised in Uganda or the payment is made by a resident person other than as expenditure of a business carried on outside Uganda through a permanent establishment. The blanket inclusion of non-resident personnel serving outside Uganda in a PAYE assessment, without individualised analysis establishing residence status, place of service, and tax nexus, lacks sufficient factual and legal foundation.

Legislation cited (11)

Cases cited (4)

  • Uganda Insurers Association v Uganda Revenue Authority (TAT Application No. 12 of 2012)
  • Fukasi Kabugo v Attorney General [1975] HCB 336
  • Ready Mixed Concrete (South East) Ltd v Minister of Pensions and National Insurance [1968] 2 QB 497
  • National Social Security Fund v Uganda Revenue Authority (HCCA No. 29 of 2020)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Cayman Consults Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority 2026 UGTAT 22 (29 May 2026)
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.