Game Discount World (Uganda) Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (Civil Application No. 399 of 2021)

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.

Holding

A single Justice of the Court of Appeal dismissed an application for an interim order restraining Uganda Revenue Authority from enforcing a tax assessment of Ushs 15,039,577,028. Although the applicant had a competent notice of appeal and a pending substantive application, the court held that the substantive application would not be rendered nugatory because, under section 28(2) of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act, any tax paid could be refunded with interest if the appeal succeeded — unlike the loss of immovable property. Since an agency notice had already been issued and was payable on receipt, granting the interim order would alter, rather than preserve, the status quo and would be an order in futility.

Outcome

Interim order refused; application dismissed and substantive application (Misc. Application No. 398 of 2021) directed to be fixed for hearing.

Facts

On 1 December 2021 the High Court delivered judgment in favour of Uganda Revenue Authority in a customs dispute arising from TAT Application No. 25 of 2020. The applicant, a taxpayer, lodged a notice of appeal in the Court of Appeal on 13 December 2021 and filed a substantive application for stay of execution. The applicant claimed to have paid 30% of the disputed tax as required under section 15 of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act. On 2 December 2021 the respondent issued an agency notice against the applicant demanding Ushs 15,039,577,028, payable upon receipt. The applicant sought an interim order restraining enforcement pending the substantive application, arguing that execution would cripple its business, prevent operation of its bank accounts for 180 days and cause irreparable loss. The respondent contended the applicant had no known assets in Uganda, used its accounts only to transfer money to South Africa, and that the agency notice meant the application had been overtaken by events and would alter the status quo.

Issues

1. Whether the applicant satisfied the conditions for the grant of an interim order of stay of execution pending the hearing of the substantive application.
2. Whether granting an interim order after an agency notice had already been issued would improperly alter the status quo.
3. Whether enforcement of the disputed tax assessment would render the substantive application nugatory.

Orders

• This application is dismissed.
• The Registrar is directed to fix Miscellaneous Application No. 398 of 2021 for hearing in the next convenient session.
• Costs shall abide the outcome of the substantive application.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (12)

• Tax Appeals Tribunal Act s.28(1)
• Tax Appeals Tribunal Act s.28(2)
• Tax Appeals Tribunal Act s.28(3)
• Tax Appeals Tribunal Act s.15
• Tax Appeals Tribunal Act s.15(1)
• Civil Procedure Act Cap.71 s.98
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 52 Rules 1 & 3
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13-10 Rule 6(2)(b)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions Rule 2(2)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions Rule 76
• Tax Procedure Code Act s.2
• Tax Procedure Code Act s.31(7)

Cases cited (10)

• Uganda Projects Implementation and Management Centre v Uganda Revenue Authority (Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2009)
• Shoprite Checkers v Uganda Revenue Authority (HCCA No. 15 of 2008)
• MTN Uganda Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (Miscellaneous Application No. 319 of 2020)
• Alcon International v New Vision Printing and Publishing Corporation (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 4 of 2010)
• Hwan Sung Industries Ltd v Tajdin Hussein (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 19 of 2008)
• Yakobo Senkungu and Others v Cerencio Mukasa (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 5 of 2013)
• Steel Rolling Mills and Others v Standard Chartered Bank (Miscellaneous Application No. 267 of 2021)
• National Enterprise Corporation v Mukisa Foods (Miscellaneous Application No. 7 of 1998)
• Dr. Ahmed Muhammed Kisuule v Greenland Bank (In Liquidation) (Miscellaneous Application No. 7 of 2010)
• Wilson Mukiibi v James Semusambwa (Civil Application No. 9 of 2003)

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