Wakilii

Ernst and Young v Uganda Revenue Authority (Miscellaneous Application No. 359 of 2023)

High Court · [2023] UGCOMMC 304 · 2023 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution of Tax Appeals Tribunal ruling pending appeal to High Court
Decision
Stay of execution granted conditionally — applicant must deposit 30% of decretal sum within 30 days, failing which respondent may execute the decree

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 granted a conditional stay of execution of a Tax Appeals Tribunal ruling ordering payment of VAT. While the applicant satisfied two of three statutory conditions under Order 43 Rule 4(3) CPR (substantial loss and no unreasonable delay), it failed to provide security for due performance of the decree. The court exercised discretion in the interest of justice to grant stay on condition that the applicant deposit 30% of the decretal sum within thirty days.

Outcome

Stay of execution granted conditionally — applicant must deposit 30% of decretal sum within 30 days, failing which respondent may execute the decree

Facts

Ernst and Young appealed a Tax Appeals Tribunal ruling delivered on 6 June 2022 in TAT No. 30 of 2022, which dismissed their application and ordered payment of principal VAT of UGX 2,071,533,406 for the assessment period January 2014 to June 2018. The applicant filed a Notice of Appeal on 13 July 2022 (HCCA No. 26 of 2022) and this application for stay of execution on 10 March 2023. The applicant claimed imminent threat of collection by Uganda Revenue Authority through agency notices and other means under the Tax Procedure Code Act. The applicant had previously paid 30% of the disputed tax as required under Section 15 of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act pending determination of the objection.

Issues

  1. Whether the execution of orders in TAT No. 030 of 2020 should be stayed pending appeal.

Orders

  • Before pursuing the appeal, the applicant shall deposit 30% of the decretal sum (30% of UGX 2,071,533,406) in this court within thirty (30) days from the date of this ruling.
  • Failure of which, the respondent is at liberty to execute the decree.
  • No orders as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Mandatory Statutory Conditions
Under Order 43 Rule 4(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules, a court may not grant a stay of execution unless satisfied of three mandatory conditions: (a) that substantial loss may result to the applicant unless the order is made; (b) that the application has been made without unreasonable delay; and (c) that security has been given by the applicant for the due performance of the decree or order as may ultimately be binding upon him or her.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Substantial Loss — Meaning
Substantial loss under Order 43 Rule 4(3)(a) CPR cannot mean ordinary loss of the decretal sum or costs which must be settled by the losing party, but must be something more than that. A colossal decretal sum whose enforcement while pending appeal is likely to paralyze the applicant's operations in a manner that might not be easily atoned for in damages constitutes substantial loss.
Tax Law — Tax Appeals — Security for Stay — Statutory Payment Distinguished
The 30% payment of assessed tax required to be deposited by a taxpayer pending determination of an objection under Section 15 of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act cannot be treated as security for due performance of a decree under Order 43 Rule 4(3)(c) CPR. Such statutory payment serves a different purpose and does not satisfy the security requirement for stay of execution.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Conditional Grant in Interest of Justice
Where an applicant satisfies two of the three mandatory conditions for stay of execution but fails to provide security for due performance of the decree, the court may in the interest of justice grant a conditional stay requiring the applicant to deposit a percentage of the decretal sum within a specified time, failing which the respondent may execute the decree.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (3)

  • Steel Rolling Mills Limited & Anor vs Gestation Economique Des Mission Catholique & Anor
  • Pan African Insurance Company (U) Ltd v International Air Transport Association (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 86 of 2006)
  • Musiitwa v Eunice Busingye (Court of Appeal No. 18 of 1990)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ernst and Young v Uganda Revenue Authority (Miscellaneous Application No. 359 of 2023) [2023] UGCommC 304 (13 November 2023)
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.