Wakilii

Gassama & Brothers Ltd v Uganda Revenue Authority (Misc. Application No. 2013 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 485 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution pending appeal from Tax Appeals Tribunal decision dismissing reinstatement application
Decision
Application for stay of execution dismissed; appeal remains pending

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 held that decisions of the Tax Appeals Tribunal dismissing applications for reinstatement are appealable to the High Court as of right under section 28(1) of the Tax Appeals Tribunals Act. However, the application for stay of execution was dismissed because the applicant failed to establish an imminent threat of execution or substantial loss, and the respondent was not shown to be impecunious, making restitution available if the appeal succeeds.

Outcome

Application for stay of execution dismissed; appeal remains pending

Facts

Gassama & Brothers Ltd filed TAT Application No. 57 of 2024 against Uganda Revenue Authority, which was dismissed for want of prosecution. The applicant then filed Misc. Application No. 157 of 2025 seeking reinstatement, which was also dismissed by the Tax Appeals Tribunal for lack of sufficient cause. Dissatisfied, the applicant lodged Civil Appeal No. 0104 of 2025 in the High Court and simultaneously filed this application seeking stay of execution of the TAT decree pending determination of the appeal. The applicant claimed the respondent had extracted a decree signaling imminent execution and argued the appeal had high prospects of success. The respondent denied initiating execution proceedings and contended the appeal was defective as it arose from an interlocutory application requiring leave to appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether dismissal by the Tax Appeals Tribunal of an application for reinstatement is appealable to the High Court without seeking its leave.
  2. Whether the application for stay of execution pending appeal should be allowed.

Orders

  • Preliminary objection overruled.
  • Application for stay of execution dismissed.
  • Costs to abide the appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Tax Appeals — Appealability of Tax Appeals Tribunal Decisions on Reinstatement Applications
Both interlocutory and final decisions of the Tax Appeals Tribunal, including decisions dismissing applications for reinstatement under section 26(4) of the Tax Appeals Tribunals Act, are appealable to the High Court as of right under section 28(1) without requiring leave of court.
Stay of Execution — Conditions for Grant
For a court to grant stay of execution pending appeal, the applicant must establish: (i) that a notice of appeal has been filed; (ii) that the appeal has a likelihood of success and is not frivolous; (iii) that substantial loss may result unless the stay is granted; (iv) that the application has been made without unreasonable delay; (v) that there is a serious or imminent threat of execution; and (vi) that security has been given for due performance of the decree.
Stay of Execution — Imminent Threat of Execution
An order for stay of execution will issue only if there is actual or presently threatened execution. There must be unequivocal evidence showing that unconditional steps conveying gravity of purpose and imminent prospect of execution have been taken by the decree holder. In the absence of a warrant of execution or notice to show cause why execution should not issue, evidence of imminent danger of execution is not strong enough.
Stay of Execution — Money Decrees and Substantial Loss
Satisfaction of a money decree does not ordinarily pose the danger of rendering a pending appeal nugatory where the respondent is not impecunious, as the remedy of restitution is available to the applicant in the event the appeal is allowed. Execution of a money decree is ordinarily not stayed since it does not amount to substantial loss or irreparable injury where restitution is available.
Stay of Execution — Security for Due Performance
Courts have been reluctant to order security for due performance of the entire decretal amount in money decree cases, as such a requirement is likely to stifle appeals. Courts may instead order security for costs or, as an equitable measure, direct deposit of a portion of the decretal amount to provide partial satisfaction while safeguarding the interests of both parties until final determination of the appeal.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (14)

  • Baku Raphael Obura & Another v Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 0001 of 2005)
  • Attorney General v Shah [1971] 1 EA 50
  • Uganda Revenue Authority v Toro & Mityana Tea Company Limited (High Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2006)
  • Uganda Revenue Authority v Thembo Steels (Civil Appeal No. 09 of 2006)
  • Safari Clothing (Uganda) Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (High Court Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2021)
  • Theodore Ssekikubo and others v Attorney General & Ors (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 6 of 2013)
  • Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Busingye (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 18 of 1990)
  • Kyambogo University v Prof. Isaiah Omolo Ndiege (Court of Appeal Misc. Civil Application No. 341 of 2013)
  • Osman Kassim Ramathan v Century Bottling Company (Civil Application No. 34 of 2019)
  • Zubeda Muhamad & Anor v Laila Kaka Wallia & Anor (Civil Reference No. 7 of 2016)
  • Tropical Commodities Supplies Ltd and Others v International Credit Bank Ltd (in Liquidation) [2004] 2 EA 331
  • Alice Wambui Nganga v John Ngure Kahoro and another, ELC Case No. 482 of 2017 (at Thika); [2021] eKLR
  • Erinford Properties Ltd v Cheshire County Council [1974] All ER 448
  • DFCU Bank Ltd v Dr. Ann Persis Nakate Lussejere (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 29 of 2003)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Gassama & Brothers Ltd v Uganda Revenue Authority (Misc. Application No. 2013 of 2025) [2025] UGCommC 485 (22 October 2025)
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.