Wakilii

Kasule Mahmood and Another v Uganda Revenue Authority [2026] UGHCCD 245

High Court · 2026 Judicial Review Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for judicial review by notice of motion seeking certiorari and declaratory relief against a revenue authority's decision to prosecute
Decision
Application for judicial review dismissed; criminal proceedings before the Anti-Corruption Court to proceed

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 Court held that a decision to prosecute taken by a statutory revenue authority is not immune from judicial review, and that pending criminal proceedings do not automatically oust the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction where the legality of the decision-making process is impugned. However, judicial review examines legality, not the adequacy of investigations or sufficiency of evidence. Section 82 of the Tax Procedures Code Act is a statutory exception to the rule in Salomon, expressly authorising prosecution of responsible company officers, so prosecuting officers rather than the company was not illegal. A judicial review court cannot pronounce on the constitutional validity of a statute, that being reserved to the Constitutional Court under Article 137. The application was dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Application for judicial review dismissed; criminal proceedings before the Anti-Corruption Court to proceed

Facts

The applicants were officers of KK Electrical Company (U) Limited, the first being Managing Director and the second Operations Manager. The Uganda Revenue Authority investigated the company's tax affairs, conducted VAT audits and analysed Electronic Fiscal Receipting and Invoicing System (EFRIS) data, and concluded that fictitious purchases had been declared from Chocho Electrical Appliances Limited and Power Link Engineering Limited, resulting in unlawful VAT claims. Following assessments and further investigation, the respondent identified the applicants as the officers responsible for making false statements to a tax officer and sanctioned charges under section 58 of the Tax Procedures Code Act, read with section 82. The first applicant appeared before the Anti-Corruption Court in HCT-00-AC-CO-0070 of 2024, pleaded not guilty and was granted bail; the second applicant did not honour summons and a warrant of arrest issued. The applicants alleged that investigations were incomplete, that documentary material supplied by the company (ledgers, invoices, bank statements, proof of payment) had been disregarded, that administrative tax processes had not been exhausted, that the company's separate legal personality had been ignored, and that they had not personally filed the impugned VAT returns. They sought certiorari and declarations.

Issues

  1. Whether the preliminary objections raised by both parties were sustainable.
  2. Whether the respondent's decision to sanction and institute criminal proceedings against the applicants was amenable to judicial review.
  3. Whether the pendency of criminal proceedings and the alleged failure to exhaust alternative remedies barred the application.
  4. Whether the High Court sitting in judicial review could determine the constitutional validity of section 82(1)(a) of the Tax Procedures Code Act.
  5. Whether the applicants established illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety in the decision to prosecute them as company officers.
  6. Whether the applicants were entitled to certiorari and declaratory relief.

Orders

  • The order of certiorari quashing the respondent's decision to prosecute the applicants in HCT-00-AC-CO-0070 of 2024 is denied.
  • The declaration that the respondent's decision to sanction criminal charges against the applicants was unlawful, procedurally improper and amounted to malicious prosecution is denied.
  • Costs of the application are awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Judicial Review — Amenability — Prosecutorial Discretion of a Statutory Authority
A decision by a public authority to institute criminal proceedings is not, merely because it concerns criminal prosecution, immune from judicial review; prosecutorial discretion may be reviewed where it is exercised without jurisdiction, in excess of statutory authority, for an improper purpose, in bad faith, or in breach of legality, rationality or procedural fairness.
Judicial Review — Exhaustion of Remedies — Effect of Pending Criminal Proceedings
The pendency of criminal proceedings does not of itself deprive the High Court of supervisory jurisdiction; where the applicant impugns the legality of the decision-making process rather than the evidential merits of the criminal case, the exhaustion doctrine does not bar judicial review.
Judicial Review — Scope — Legality of Process Distinguished from Adequacy of Investigations
Judicial review is confined to the legality of the decision-making process; complaints that investigations were incomplete, that exculpatory material was ignored or that different factual conclusions ought to have been reached go to the strength of the prosecution case and are reserved for the trial court.
Company Law — Separate Legal Personality — Statutory Exception Imposing Liability on Officers
The rule in Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd does not preclude Parliament from creating statutory exceptions; section 82 of the Tax Procedures Code Act expressly attaches criminal responsibility to specified company officers where a company commits a tax offence, and prosecuting officers rather than the company is therefore not, without more, illegal.
Constitutional Law — Jurisdiction — Article 137 — Constitutional Validity of Statute Cannot Be Determined in Judicial Review
A High Court exercising judicial review jurisdiction under the Judicature Act cannot pronounce upon the constitutional validity of a statutory provision; questions of constitutional interpretation fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court under Article 137, and the impugned provision remains valid law until declared otherwise.
Tax Law — Enforcement — Administrative Assessment and Criminal Prosecution as Distinct Processes
Administrative tax assessment and criminal prosecution serve distinct purposes, and nothing in the Tax Procedures Code Act requires administrative tax processes to be concluded before criminal proceedings are instituted; an ongoing assessment dispute does not deprive the revenue authority of statutory authority to prosecute.
Administrative Law — Procedural Impropriety — No Right to a Hearing Before a Decision to Prosecute; Status of DPP Guidelines
In the absence of a statutory requirement, a decision-maker need not conduct a quasi-judicial hearing before deciding to institute criminal proceedings, and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions Guidelines on the Decision to Charge do not of themselves create enforceable procedural rights whose breach invalidates a statutory prosecution.

Legislation cited (15)

Cases cited (11)

  • Pastoli v Kabale District Local Government Council and Others [2008] 2 EA 300
  • Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374
  • Chief Constable of North Wales Police v Evans [1982] 3 All ER 141
  • Chief Constable of North Wales Police v Evans [1982] 1 WLR 1155
  • Kozuo Joseph Andres and Others v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Cause No. 106 of 2010)
  • Attorney General v James Mark Kamoga and Another (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2004)
  • Attorney General of Hong Kong v Lee Kwong-kut [1993] AC 951
  • R v Director of Public Prosecutions, ex parte Kebilene [2000] 2 AC 326
  • Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223
  • Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd [1897] AC 22
  • Rutayisire and Another v Uganda Revenue Authority and Another (Miscellaneous Cause No. 236 of 2020)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kasule Mahmood and Another v Uganda Revenue Authority [2026] UGHCCD 245 (24 July 2026)
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.