Wakilii

Ericson v Uganda Revenue Authority (Application No TAT 67 of 2021)

Tribunal · [2021] UGTAT 11 · 2021 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to re-open case and add documents and witnesses arising from Application No. 60 of 2020
Decision
Applicant permitted to re-open case and adduce additional evidence, but ordered to pay costs of the application to the respondent

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 held that an applicant may be granted leave to re-open its case and adduce additional documents even after closing its case, where the Tribunal's statutory mandate under section 22(2) of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act requires proceedings to be conducted with minimal formality and technicality. The Tribunal must balance this mandate with the need to prevent abuse of process, considering factors including whether the respondent has called witnesses, whether prejudice would result, and the applicant's burden of proof under section 18 of the Act. Costs may be awarded to address any prejudice.

Outcome

Applicant permitted to re-open case and adduce additional evidence, but ordered to pay costs of the application to the respondent

Facts

Ericsson AB brought an application under section 22(3) of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act and related rules seeking leave to re-open its case and add documents and witnesses. The applicant had previously closed its case in Application No. 60 of 2020. The Tribunal had earlier rejected certain documents (Annexure A) on grounds that they were not signed, not addressed to or copied to the witness, and bore no heading or description. The applicant sought to introduce three categories of evidence: a detailed explanation of services provided to customers, a detailed reconciliation of sales during the audit period as declared in VAT returns against audited financial statements, and copies of VAT returns for 2013-2017. The respondent had not yet called any witnesses. The applicant argued the additional evidence was vital to its case and would resolve the reconciliation dispute. The respondent opposed, arguing the applicant had willingly closed its case and was attempting to fill gaps in its evidence.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant should be granted leave to re-open its case after having closed it.
  2. Whether the applicant should be granted leave to add documents and witnesses to the list of documents and witnesses.
  3. Whether the additional evidence sought to be adduced is new and important evidence which after exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the applicant at the time of the hearing.
  4. Whether granting the application would prejudice the respondent.

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • Applicant granted leave to re-open its case.
  • Applicant granted leave to tender in relevant documents subject to the rules on admissibility of evidence.
  • Costs of the application awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Re-opening of Cases — Discretion of Court — Factors to Consider
A tribunal has discretion to allow a case to be re-opened at any time before judgment is issued, taking into account factors such as the finality of the case, the stage of the proceedings, and reasons why the evidence was not led on time.
Tax Law — Tax Appeals Tribunal — Procedural Flexibility — Minimal Formality and Technicality
Section 22(2) of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act requires that proceedings before the Tribunal be conducted with as little formality and technicality as possible, and the Tribunal is not bound by strict rules of evidence. This mandate must inform the Tribunal's approach to applications to re-open cases.
Tax Law — Tax Appeals Tribunal — Burden of Proof — Right to Adduce Evidence
Section 18 of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act places the burden of proof on the applicant to prove that an objection decision is excessive or that a taxation decision should have been made differently. A taxpayer cannot discharge this burden if denied a chance to adduce documents that help its case.
Civil Procedure — Re-opening of Cases — Equality Before the Law — Represented and Unrepresented Litigants
In determining whether to allow re-opening of a case, a tribunal must apply a flexible standard that does not discriminate between litigants represented by advocates and those appearing in person or represented by non-advocates, to avoid promoting inequalities in protection of persons before the law.
Civil Procedure — Re-opening of Cases — Prejudice to Opposing Party — Costs as Remedy
Where a party is granted leave to re-open its case, any prejudice to the opposing party can be addressed through an award of costs. The fact that the opposing party has not yet called witnesses is a relevant factor indicating minimal prejudice.
Constitutional Law — Administration of Justice — Article 126(2)(e) — Substantive Justice Without Undue Regard to Technicalities
Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution, which provides that substantive justice shall be administered without undue regard to technicalities, does not eliminate the requirement that litigants comply with rules of procedure, but cautions against undue regard to technicalities. Rules of procedure are handmaidens to justice and should be applied with due regard to the circumstances of each case.

Legislation cited (7)

  • Tax Appeals Tribunal Act s.22(3)
  • Tax Appeals Tribunal Act s.22(2)
  • Tax Appeals Tribunal Act s.18
  • Tax Appeals Tribunal Act s.23
  • Tax Appeals (Procedure) Rules r.30
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.52 r.1
  • Constitution of Uganda Art.126(2)(e)

Cases cited (8)

  • Samba Telecom v Karuhanga and Another (Misc Application No. 2014/451)
  • [1992] HCA 36
  • Kasirye Byaruhanga & Co. Advocates v Uganda Development Bank (SC Civil Application No. 2 of 1997)
  • Utex Industries Ltd v Attorney General (SCCA No. 53 of 1997)
  • [2017] eKLR
  • Airtel (U) Ltd v Uganda Revenue Authority (Application No. 10 of 2019)
  • [1967] 1 EA 116
  • Micheal Fethun v The State (Case No. 458 of 1996)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ericson v Uganda Revenue Authority (Application No TAT 67 of 2021) 2021 UGTAT 11 (30 December 2021)
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.