Wakilii

Farid Meghani v Uganda Revenue Authority (Civil Miscellaneous Application No 185 of 2020)

Tribunal · [2021] UGTAT 1 · 2021 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for extension of time to file an application for review of a taxation objection decision
Decision
Application for extension of time dismissed with costs

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 dismissed the application for extension of time. The applicant filed the application on 11 December 2020, beyond the statutory six-month period ending 24 September 2020. The Tribunal held that it could only exercise discretion to extend time if the application was brought within the six-month statutory period prescribed by s.16(7) of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act. After that period, the Tribunal had no discretion to exercise. The applicant failed to explain the delay from 22 June 2020 (when COVID-19 restrictions were lifted) to 24 September 2020 (the statutory deadline).

Outcome

Application for extension of time dismissed with costs

Facts

The applicant was issued two tax assessments and filed an objection on 27 December 2019. On 24 March 2020, the respondent served him with an objection decision. The applicant had 30 days to file an application for review with the Tribunal. He did not file within that period. On 18 March 2020, the President issued COVID-19 directives restricting social interaction and movement. On 30 March 2020, a transport ban was effected. The lockdown extended for three months and final restrictions were removed on 22 June 2020. The applicant also stated he went abroad for treatment of a back ailment in November 2019 and suffered pain that limited him. The applicant filed this application for extension of time on 11 December 2020, seeking to extend time to file an application for review of the objection decision.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant demonstrated sufficient cause to warrant an extension of time to file an application for review of the taxation objection decision.
  2. Whether the COVID-19 lockdown restrictions and the applicant's medical condition constituted reasonable cause for the delay in filing the application.
  3. Whether the Tribunal retained discretion to grant an extension of time where the application was filed beyond the statutory six-month period prescribed by s.16(7) of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Tax Law — Tax Appeals Tribunal — Extension of Time — Statutory Time Limits — Discretion of Tribunal
The Tax Appeals Tribunal can only exercise its discretion to extend time to file an application for review if the application for extension is brought within the statutory six-month period prescribed by s.16(7) of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act. After that period expires, the Tribunal has no discretion to grant an extension.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Factors to Consider — Length of Delay, Reason for Delay, Chances of Success, Prejudice
In determining an application for extension of time, the court or tribunal should consider: (i) the length of delay; (ii) the reason for the delay; (iii) the possibility or chances of success; and (iv) the degree of prejudice to the other party.
Tax Law — Tax Appeals Tribunal — Extension of Time — Reasonable Cause — COVID-19 Lockdown — Unexplained Delay After Restrictions Lifted
Where an applicant relies on COVID-19 lockdown restrictions as reasonable cause for delay in filing an application, the applicant must explain any delay that occurred after the restrictions were lifted. Failure to account for the period between the lifting of restrictions and the statutory deadline is fatal to the application.

Legislation cited (7)

  • Tax Appeals Tribunal Act s.14
  • Tax Appeals Tribunal Act s.16
  • Tax Appeals Tribunal Act s.16(1)(c)
  • Tax Appeals Tribunal Act s.16(7)
  • Tax Appeals Tribunal (Procedure) Rules r.11
  • Tax Appeals Tribunal (Procedure) Rules r.11(6)
  • Civil Procedure Act s.98

Cases cited (4)

  • Parimal v Veena [2011] 3 SCC 545
  • Eriga Jos Perion v Vuzzi Victor & 2 Others (HCMA No. 9 of 2017)
  • Tight Security Limited v Chartis Uganda Insurance Co. Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 8 of 2014)
  • Mulindwa George William v Kisubika Joseph (Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2014)

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 Miscellaneous Application No 185 of 2020) 2021 UGTAT 1 (29 January 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.