Wakilii

Farid Meghani v Uganda Revenue Authority (Civil Appeal 6 of 2021)

High Court · [2022] UGCOMMC 145 · 2022 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from decision of Tax Appeals Tribunal dismissing application for extension of time to file application for review of tax objection decision
Decision
Appeal dismissed with costs 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

Held that the Tax Appeals Tribunal misdirected itself when it construed section 16(7) of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act as limiting the period within which an application for extension of time may be filed. However, the appellant failed to explain the delay between the lifting of the COVID-19 lockdown on 2 June 2020 and the filing of the application on 11 December 2020. The nationwide COVID-19 lockdown from 18 March to 2 June 2020 constituted a disability justifying the appellant's inactivity during that period, but the unexplained delay thereafter was fatal to the application. Appeal dismissed.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed with costs to the respondent

Facts

On 6 August 2019 the appellant purchased residential property at the price of USD 600,000. On 20 December 2019 he was issued with an Administrative Tax Default Assessment in the sum of UGX 133,200,000 for withholding tax on the transaction. On 27 December 2019 he objected. On 24 March 2020 the respondent disallowed the objection. The appellant filed an application for leave to appeal out of time on 11 December 2020, citing the COVID-19 lockdown that took effect on 18 March 2020 and his post-surgical back condition as reasons for the delay. The Tax Appeals Tribunal dismissed the application on 29 January 2021, finding that the lockdown was lifted on 22 June 2020 and the appellant failed to explain the delay from then until 11 December 2020.

Issues

  1. Whether the powers of the Tax Appeals Tribunal to extend time within which to apply for review are limited to applications filed within six months of the notification of a taxation decision.
  2. Whether the Tribunal erred when it dismissed the application for extension of time.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Discretion of Court — Interpretation of Conflicting Statutory Provisions
Where a statute contains conflicting time limits for the same procedural act, the special and more specific provision prevails over the general provision; section 16(1)(c) of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act specifying thirty days from service of notice prevails where notice is formally communicated to the applicant, while section 16(7) specifying six months from the date of the taxation decision applies where no formal notice is served.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Discretion of Tribunal — Temporal Limits on Power to Extend
Neither section 16(2) of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act nor rule 11(1) of the Tax Appeals Tribunal (Procedure) Rules imposes a time limit for the making of an application for extension of time; such applications may be made before or after expiration of the limited time, and the Tribunal is not precluded from considering applications made outside any particular period.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Reasonable Cause — COVID-19 Lockdown as Disability
A nationwide lockdown imposed to mitigate the spread of COVID-19, the violation of which constitutes a criminal offence, creates a situation of disability for the purposes of suspension or extension of procedural time limits, since the litigant is rendered unable to take the required procedural step by extraneous circumstances beyond his control.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Burden on Applicant — Unexplained Delay After Removal of Disability
Where a disability preventing the filing of a procedural application is removed, the applicant must show that upon removal of the disability he acted with all due diligence and expedition; unexplained delay after the removal of the disability is fatal to an application for extension of time, and delay defeats equity.
Administrative Law — Appeals from Discretionary Decisions — Grounds for Appellate Intervention
An appellate court will not interfere with the exercise of discretion by a tribunal unless the appellant identifies specific error of fact or law, or unless the decision is so clearly wrong as to amount to an injustice; a difference of opinion between the appellate court and the tribunal as to the proper order to make is not sufficient ground for interference.
Tax Law — Statutory Interpretation — Certainty in Tax Legislation — Conflicting Provisions
Where conflicting provisions or interpretations arise in tax legislation, the provisions should be interpreted in favour of the taxpayer; certainty in tax law is the cornerstone of the state governed by the rule of law and requires that tax relations be precisely regulated, with the will of the state strictly defined and equally understood by all addressees of tax norms.

Legislation cited (15)

  • Tax Appeals Tribunal Act s.16(1)(c)
  • Tax Appeals Tribunal Act s.16(2)
  • Tax Appeals Tribunal Act s.16(7)
  • Tax Appeals Tribunal Act s.22(3)
  • Tax Appeals Tribunal Act s.27(2)
  • Tax Appeals Tribunal (Procedure) Rules r.11(1)
  • Tax Appeals Tribunal (Procedure) Rules r.11(2)
  • Tax Appeals Tribunal (Procedure) Rules r.11(6)
  • Tax Procedures Code Act 2014 s.25(1)
  • Income Tax Act s.118(B)2
  • Interpretation Act s.14(4)
  • Interpretation Act s.34
  • Public Health (Control of COVID-19) Rules 2020 r.17
  • Public Health (Control of COVID-19) (No.2) Rules 2020 r.9
  • Public Health (Control of COVID-19) (No.2) (Amendment No.3) Rules 2020 r.7(4)

Cases cited (19)

  • Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1998)
  • Mbogo and another v. Shah [1968] 1 EA 93
  • National Insurance Corporation v. Mugenyi and Company Advocates [1987] HCB 28
  • Wasswa J. Hannington and another v. Ochola Maria Onyango and three Others [1992-93] HCB 103
  • Devji v. Jinabhai (1934) 1 EACA 89
  • H.K. Shah and another v. Osman Allu (1974) 14 EACA 45
  • Patel v. R. Gottifried (1963) 20 EACA, 81
  • Haji Nadin Matovu v Ben Kiwanuka (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 12 of 1991)
  • Sheikh Jama v. Dubat Farah [1959] 1 EA 789
  • Hussein Janmohamed and Sons v. Twentsche Overseas Trading Co Ltd [1967] 1 EA 287
  • Thomas James Arthur v. Nyeri Electricity Undertaking [1961] 1 EA 492
  • Crane Finance Co Ltd v Makerere Properties Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2001)
  • Siya John v. The Attorney General [1972] HCB 86
  • Mungecha Fred M. v. Attorney General [1981] HCB 34
  • Sempa James v. Attorney General [1981] HCB 32
  • Phelps v. Button [2016] EWHC 3185
  • Shanti v. Hindocha and others [1973] EA 207
  • Sango Bay Estates Ltd v. Dresdmer Bank [1971] EA 17
  • GM Combined (U) Limited v AK Detergents (U) Limited (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 34 of 1995)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Farid Meghani v Uganda Revenue Authority (Civil Appeal 6 of 2021) [2022] UGCommC 145 (12 July 2022)
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.