Iliso Consulting (PTY) Limited and 2 Others v Iliso Consulting (PTY) Limited t a Nako Incorporated in South Africa and 2 Others (Civil Suit No. 1031 of 2019)
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
Held that although the High Court has unlimited original jurisdiction under Article 139(1) of the Constitution, where Parliament has established a specialized tribunal with particular jurisdiction—here the Tax Appeals Tribunal for tax disputes—the court should not usurp that tribunal's functions. Where a suit is primarily grounded on a tax dispute, it should be referred to the Tax Appeals Tribunal in the first instance, with residual issues in company or contract law referred back to the High Court if necessary after the tribunal's determination.
Outcome
Suit referred to Tax Appeals Tribunal for adjudication of tax dispute; residual issues in company law and contract law to be referred back to High Court where necessary after tribunal determination
Facts
The 1st plaintiff was assessed tax of UGX 1,469,083,334 by the 2nd defendant Uganda Revenue Authority, to which the 1st plaintiff objected. The plaintiffs instituted Civil Suit No. 1031 of 2019 in the Commercial Court against three defendants including URA. At scheduling on 15 December 2020, the 2nd defendant indicated its intention to raise a preliminary objection on jurisdiction. On 11 January 2021, counsel for the 2nd defendant argued that the suit was prematurely instituted because the dispute was a tax dispute that must be heard first by the Tax Appeals Tribunal established under Article 152(3) of the Constitution and the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act Cap 345. The plaintiffs opposed, arguing that the case involved significant questions of company law and contract law arising from alleged misrepresentation leading to erroneous tax assessment, giving the High Court exclusive original jurisdiction under Article 139.
Issues
- Whether the Commercial Court has original jurisdiction to hear a tax dispute or whether such dispute must first be heard by the Tax Appeals Tribunal established under Article 152(3) of the Constitution and the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act Cap 345.
Orders
- Suit referred to the Tax Appeals Tribunal for handling and disposal.
- Any costs so far incurred by any party in respect of this suit shall be in the cause.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (6)
- Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 139(1)
- Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 129
- Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 152(3)
- Tax Appeals Tribunal Act Cap 345 s.14(1)
- Tax Appeals Tribunal Act Cap 345 s.27
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 6 Rule 29
Cases cited (2)
- Kawuki Mathias v Commissioner General URA (Miscellaneous Cause No. 14 of 2014)
- Uganda Revenue Authority v Rabbo Enterprises (U) Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2004)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.