Finn Church Aid Uganda v Uganda Revenue Authority [2025] UGTAT 17
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 employment and supplier contracts executed in Uganda are chargeable with stamp duty at UGX 10,000 per agreement under the Stamp Duty Act. The duty is payable by the person who draws or makes the agreement as specified in Schedule 3. However, the Respondent must physically verify the actual agreements underlying PAYE and withholding tax returns to ensure accuracy of the assessment. The assessment of Shs. 53,800,000 was set aside and the matter remitted for re-computation based on actual agreements.
Outcome
Assessment set aside and matter remitted to URA for re-computation based on physical verification of agreements
Facts
Finn Church Aid Uganda, an international NGO registered in 2014, works with refugees in Uganda as an implementing agent for UNHCR and partner with the Office of the Prime Minister. On 27 September 2024, URA assessed the Applicant Shs. 53,800,000 for stamp duty on employment and supplier agreements executed between 2014-2024. The Applicant objected on 5 October 2024, arguing they did not have the assessed number of contracts and that the Stamp Duty Act does not specify which party bears the cost. URA maintained the assessment on 4 November 2024. The Applicant contended the assessment was based solely on PAYE and withholding tax returns without engagement or verification of actual agreements. URA only requested the physical agreements on 25 October 2024, after issuing the assessment, and did not grant the Applicant's request for time to compile documents spanning ten years.
Issues
- Whether the Applicant is liable to pay the stamp duty as assessed by the Respondent.
- Whether the Stamp Duty Act specifies which party bears the cost of stamp duty on employment and supplier contracts.
- Whether the Respondent's assessment based on PAYE and withholding tax returns without physical verification of agreements was valid.
Orders
- The assessment of Shs. 53,800,000 is set aside.
- The matter is remitted to the Respondent to re-compute the duty based on the actual agreements underlying the PAYE and withholding tax returns that were reviewed by the Respondent.
- The above exercise should be completed not later than 15 September 2025.
- Each party should bear their own costs.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (9)
- Stamp Duty Act Cap 339 s.2
- Stamp Duty Act Cap 339 s.2(1)(a)
- Stamp Duty Act Cap 339 s.3(1)
- Stamp Duty Act Cap 339 s.9
- Stamp Duty Act Cap 339 s.47
- Stamp Duty Act Cap 339 Schedule 2 Item 5
- Stamp Duty Act Cap 339 Schedule 3 paragraph 1
- Tax Appeals Tribunal Act s.14
- Tax Appeals Tribunal Act s.28
Cases cited (4)
- Uganda Revenue Authority v Siraje Hassan Kajura (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2015)
- Infectious Diseases Institute v Uganda Revenue Authority (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2022)
- Farid Meghani v Uganda Revenue Authority (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2021)
- Stanbic Bank Uganda v Uganda Revenue Authority (High Court Civil Suit No. 92 of 2007)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.