Wakilii

Just-Know (JK) Housing Enterprises Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (Miscellaneous Application 1712 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 461 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution of Tax Appeals Tribunal ruling pending determination of appeal to High Court
Decision
Application for stay of execution dismissed; applicant may proceed with appeal but without stay of enforcement

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

Application for stay of execution of Tax Appeals Tribunal ruling dismissed. Court found that while applicant filed notice of appeal within time and appeal had merit, applicant failed to demonstrate substantial loss or irreparable harm that could not be compensated by damages. Uganda Revenue Authority not shown to be impecunious, making restitution available if appeal succeeds. Demand notices alone insufficient to establish imminent threat of execution absent warrant or notice to show cause.

Outcome

Application for stay of execution dismissed; applicant may proceed with appeal but without stay of enforcement

Facts

Applicant challenged Uganda Revenue Authority tax assessment of UGX 110,098,628 before Tax Appeals Tribunal. Tribunal dismissed application on 28 March 2025 finding it filed out of time, applicant had not paid required 30% of disputed tax, and rejection of ADR application did not constitute taxation decision. Applicant filed notice of appeal to High Court on 23 April 2025. On 6 May and 14 May 2025, URA issued demand notices for disputed tax liability and threatened enforcement. Applicant sought stay of execution pending appeal, arguing assessment was against wrong taxpayer as property registered in name of Joseph Kamala, not applicant company. Applicant contended enforcement would drive it out of business and render appeal nugatory.

Issues

  1. Whether the application for stay of execution pending appeal should be allowed.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs to abide the appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Stay of Execution — Prerequisites for Grant
An application for stay of execution pending appeal must satisfy multiple conditions: notice of appeal must be filed; appeal must not be frivolous and must have likelihood of success; substantial loss may result unless stay granted; application made without unreasonable delay; security for due performance furnished where appropriate; and there must be serious or imminent threat of execution.
Stay of Execution — Imminent Threat of Execution
Evidence of imminent threat of execution requires unequivocal evidence showing unconditional steps conveying gravity of purpose and imminent prospect of execution. Demand notices alone are insufficient absent a warrant of execution or notice to show cause why execution should not issue from the executing court.
Stay of Execution — Money Decrees and Substantial Loss
Satisfaction of a money decree does not ordinarily pose danger of rendering 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. Substantial loss must be of a nature which cannot be undone once inflicted and must irreparably affect the very essential core of the applicant.
Stay of Execution — Security for Due Performance
Courts have been reluctant to order security for due performance of money decrees as the requirement to deposit the entire decretal amount is likely to stifle appeals. Courts may instead order security for costs or, as an equitable measure, order deposit of a portion of the decretal amount to provide partial satisfaction while safeguarding interests of both parties pending appeal.
Tax Appeals — Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Under section 31(1) of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act, where an appeal from a taxation decision has been lodged, the reviewing body may make an order staying or otherwise affecting the operation or implementation of the decision as it considers appropriate for securing the effectiveness of the proceeding and determination of the appeal.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (9)

  • Makula International Limited v His Eminence Cardinal Nsubuga and Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1981)
  • Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Busingye (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 18 of 1990)
  • Kyambogo University v Prof. Isaiah Omolo Ndiege (Court of Appeal Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 341 of 2013)
  • Osman Kassim Ramathan v Century Bottling Company (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 34 of 2019)
  • Zubeda Muhamad and Another v Laila Kaka Wallia and Another (Supreme Court 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 Propertied Ltd. v Cheshire County Council [1974] 412 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.

Just-Know (JK) Housing Enterprises Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (Miscellaneous Application 1712 of 2025) [2025] UGCommC 461 (13 December 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.