Wakilii

Heritage oil and Gas Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (Civil Appeal 3 of 2021)

Supreme Court · [2023] UGSC 47 · 2023 Appeal Dismissed (Incompetent) AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Second appeal to the Supreme Court from a Court of Appeal decision dismissing an appeal against a High Court interlocutory scheduling-conference ruling in a tax appeal originating from the Tax Appeals Tribunal.
Decision
Preliminary objection upheld; appeal dismissed as incompetent with costs to the respondent; file remitted to the High Court for determination of the substantive appeal on its merits.

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.
Judicial journey

Appeal & case history

2 linked decisions

Follow this matter from the decision below through each appellate court.

Outcome not classified Read the higher decision to confirm the precise result.
Supreme Court This decision
Heritage oil and Gas Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (Civil Appeal 3 of 2021) [2023] UGSC 47 (5 October 2023)
[2023] UGSC 47
Supreme Court decision located in the Wakilii corpus. Linked from court records and operative language in the judgments.

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 Supreme Court upheld the respondent's preliminary objection and dismissed the appeal as incompetent. It held that, under section 27 of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act, the High Court hearing appeals from the Tribunal exercises appellate, not original, jurisdiction, and that all tax disputes must first go to the Tribunal. A right of appeal is a creature of statute; there is no right of appeal to the Supreme Court against interlocutory orders that are incidental to an appeal and do not flow from its final determination. The 2021 amendment permitting appeals as of right did not apply retrospectively. The file was remitted to the High Court for determination on the merits.

Outcome

Preliminary objection upheld; appeal dismissed as incompetent with costs to the respondent; file remitted to the High Court for determination of the substantive appeal on its merits.

Facts

In 2010 the appellant obtained proceeds from the disposal of oil blocks in the Albertine Graben region. The respondent issued tax assessments of USD 404,925,000 and USD 30,000,000. The appellant's objections were unsuccessful, so it challenged the assessments in the Tax Appeals Tribunal (Applications Nos. 26 and 28 of 2010), which dismissed the applications. The appellant appealed to the High Court under section 27 of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act (Civil Appeals Nos. 23 and 3 of 2011), which were consolidated. At a scheduling conference, the appellant objected to paragraphs 91-94 and 142-150 of the respondent's skeleton arguments. Alividza J ruled that the respondent's skeleton arguments were accepted as filed and directed the parties to prepare final submissions. The appellant appealed that interlocutory ruling to the Court of Appeal, which dismissed the appeal as incompetent. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court, where the respondent raised a preliminary objection challenging the competence of the appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether the appellant had a right of appeal to the Supreme Court against an interlocutory order made by the High Court while exercising appellate jurisdiction over a matter originating in the Tax Appeals Tribunal.
  2. Whether the High Court exercises original or appellate jurisdiction when hearing appeals from the Tax Appeals Tribunal under section 27 of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act.
  3. Whether the Tax Appeals Tribunal (Amendment) Act 2021, which allowed appeals to the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court as of right, applies retrospectively to the present appeal.

Orders

  • The respondent's preliminary objection succeeds.
  • The appeal is dismissed as incompetent with costs to the respondent.
  • The file is remitted to the High Court for determination of the matter on its merits.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Right of Appeal as a Creature of Statute
A right of appeal is a creature of statute and must be conferred expressly by statute; there is no inherent right of appeal.
Civil Procedure — Interlocutory Orders — No Right of Appeal to the Supreme Court
There is no right of appeal to the Supreme Court from interlocutory orders which are incidental to an appeal and do not result from the final determination of the appeal itself.
Civil Procedure — Appeals as of Right — Section 6(1) Judicature Act — Original Jurisdiction Requirement
An appeal lies as of right to the Supreme Court against an interlocutory order only where that order was made by the High Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction and has been confirmed, varied or reversed by the Court of Appeal.
Tax Law — Tax Appeals Tribunal — Nature of High Court Jurisdiction under Section 27
When the High Court hears an appeal from a decision of the Tax Appeals Tribunal under section 27 of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act, it exercises appellate jurisdiction, not original jurisdiction.
Tax Law — Tax Disputes — Mandatory First Recourse to the Tax Appeals Tribunal
All tax disputes must first be lodged with the Tax Appeals Tribunal and may only be brought before the High Court on appeal; the High Court has no concurrent original jurisdiction over tax disputes.
Statutory Interpretation — Retrospectivity of Statutes
Statutory law does not apply retrospectively unless the statute, by express words or necessary implication, so provides; accordingly the Tax Appeals Tribunal (Amendment) Act 2021 does not apply to proceedings determined before its commencement.

Legislation cited (25)

Cases cited (19)

  • Babcon Uganda Ltd v Mbale Resort Hotel Limited (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2015)
  • Mansukhlal Ramji & Crane Finance Co. Ltd v Attorney General & 2 Others (Civil Appeal No. 20 of 2002)
  • Hwan Sung Limited v M&D Timber Merchants Transporters Limited (Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2018)
  • J.B Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd v Glaxo Group Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 18 of 2004)
  • Uganda Revenue Authority v Rabbo Enterprises (U) Ltd & Another (Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2004)
  • Denis Bireije v Attorney General, No.5 of ... (CA)
  • Kituma Magala & Co. Advocates v Celtel (U) Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2010)
  • Uganda Taxi Operators & Drivers Association v Uganda Revenue Authority (Miscellaneous Application No. 157 of 2017)
  • Uganda Cooperative Transport Union Ltd v Roko Construction Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 35 of 2015)
  • Sanyu Lwanga Musoke v Sam Galiwango (Civil Appeal No. 48 of 1995)
  • Mohamed Hamid v Roko Construction Limited [2014] UGSC 92
  • Sango Bay Estates Ltd & Others v Dresdner Bank & A.G [1971] EA 17
  • GM Combined (U) Ltd v A.K Detergents (U) Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 23 of 1994)
  • Lukwago Erias v KCCA (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2014)
  • Attorney General v Shah, No.4 of 1971 EACA 50
  • Baku Raphael v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2005)
  • Uganda National Examinations Board v Mparo General Contractors (Civil Application No. 19 of 2004)
  • Dr. Kasirivu Atwooki & Others v Grace Bamurangye Bororoza & Others (Civil Application No. 2 of 2010)
  • Beatrice Kobusingye v Fiona Nyakaana & Another (Civil Appeal No. 5 of 2004)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Heritage oil and Gas Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (Civil Appeal 3 of 2021) [2023] UGSC 47 (5 October 2023)
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.