Wakilii

Habasa v Uganda Revenue Authority (Civil Suit 192 of 2019)

High Court · [2024] UGHCCD 70 · 2024 Judgment for Defendant AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for recovery of informer fees under Finance Act 2014
Decision
Suit dismissed. Plaintiff not entitled to informer fees or any remedies sought.

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

An informer claiming fees under Finance Act 2014 s.8 must prove a direct causal nexus between the information supplied and the tax recovered by URA. The court held that the plaintiff failed to prove his information led to the recovery of Ugx. Shs. 8,535,813,541, as the defendant demonstrated that the tax was collected based on the taxpayer's own self-declarations and an audit initiated before the plaintiff supplied his information. The claim was dismissed.

Outcome

Suit dismissed. Plaintiff not entitled to informer fees or any remedies sought.

Facts

The plaintiff claimed he supplied information to URA on 8 June 2018 regarding tax evasion by Civil Aviation Authority relating to rental income taxes. He alleged the information led to URA recovering Ugx. Shs. 8,535,813,541 and claimed entitlement to 10% informer fees under Finance Act 2014 s.8. URA admitted receiving the information but contended the tax recovered resulted from the Authority's routine self-declarations and an audit URA had initiated in March 2018, before the plaintiff's information was received. URA's evidence showed that the invoice the plaintiff supplied had already been declared by the Authority in its May 2016 VAT returns.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to 10% of tax recovered by the Defendant.
  2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the remedies sought.

Orders

  • The suit is hereby dismissed.
  • No order as to costs given the nature and circumstances of this case.

Rules and key headnotes

Informer Fees — Finance Act 2014 s.8 — Requirements for Entitlement
For an informer to succeed in a claim for fees under Finance Act 2014 s.8, the claimant must prove: (a) that they are a person who provided information to the Commissioner General; (b) that the information led to the recovery of a tax or duty; (c) that the Commissioner General actually recovered the tax or duty; and (d) that if recovery occurred, the informer is entitled to 10% of the principal tax or duty recovered.
Informer Fees — Burden of Proof — Causal Nexus
It is not enough for an informer to merely show that they gave information and that taxes were subsequently recovered; there must be direct evidence showing that the information given led to the recovery of taxes. The claimant must prove a nexus between the information provided and the tax collected.
Informer Fees — Self-Declaration by Taxpayers — No Entitlement
Where taxes are recovered as a result of a taxpayer's routine self-declarations in VAT returns and audits initiated by URA independently of the informer's information, the informer is not entitled to informer fees even if they supplied information about the same taxpayer, as the recovery did not result from the information supplied.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (3)

  • Matagala Vincent v Uganda Revenue Authority (Civil Suit No. 274 of 2008)
  • David Olaka v Uganda Revenue Authority (Civil Suit No. 92 of 2014)
  • KB Serial No. 056 v Commissioner General Uganda Revenue Authority (Civil Suit No. 294 of 2015)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Habasa v Uganda Revenue Authority (Civil Suit 192 of 2019) [2024] UGHCCD 70 (13 March 2024)
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.