Wakilii

Mityana Foods & Beverages Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (Miscellaneous Application 2397 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGCOMMC 209 · 2026 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution pending appeal from Tax Appeals Tribunal decision
Decision
Stay of execution granted pending determination of Civil Appeal No. 0087 of 2025

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 High Court granted a stay of execution of the Tax Appeals Tribunal's decision pending appeal. The court found that the applicant had filed a notice of appeal within the statutory period, the appeal raised arguable grounds of law with merit, there was imminent threat of execution evidenced by a warrant of distress and notice of attachment, and the applicant had furnished the required 30% security deposit. Although the respondent was not impecunious and restitution would be available, the court balanced the equities and concluded that refusal to grant the stay would inflict greater hardship on the applicant than granting it would cause the respondent.

Outcome

Stay of execution granted pending determination of Civil Appeal No. 0087 of 2025

Facts

The applicant, Mityana Foods & Beverages Limited, filed TAT Application No. 25 of 2024 challenging a Local Excise Duty assessment by Uganda Revenue Authority. On 26 June 2025, the Tax Appeals Tribunal dismissed the application as time-barred. The applicant filed a notice of appeal on 22 July 2025 and lodged the record of appeal on 11 August 2025. On 25 July 2025, URA issued a warrant of distress to recover UGX 149,503,180. On 26 September 2025, court bailiffs demanded payment, and on 5 October 2025 issued a notice of attachment and sale of the applicant's motor vehicle (UBJ 830V Isuzu Forward) used in daily business operations. The applicant filed this application on 24 October 2025 seeking a stay of execution pending the appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether the execution of the orders arising from TAT Application No. 25 of 2024 should be stayed pending the hearing and determination of Civil Appeal No. 0087 of 2025.

Orders

  • The execution of the orders arising from the ruling against the applicant in TAT Application No. 25 of 2024 are hereby stayed pending the hearing and determination of Civil Appeal No. 0087 of 2025.
  • Costs shall abide the outcome of the appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Stay of Execution — Conditions for Grant — Notice of Appeal Filed
The foundation upon which applications for stay of execution pending appeal rest is the proper filing of an appeal in accordance with the law. Before a court considers whether to halt the enforcement of a decree, it must first be satisfied that the applicant has duly lodged a notice of appeal, complying with all procedural requirements set forth by the relevant law and rules.
Stay of Execution — Likelihood of Success on Appeal
An appeal will not be considered frivolous if the grounds raised have a sound, rational basis founded on the facts and the law, and there is a measure of certainty justifying the conclusion that the appellate court could reasonably arrive at a conclusion different from that of the trial court. The applicant must place before court material that goes beyond a mere statement that the appeal has a likelihood of success, such as a draft memorandum of appeal or a copy of the judgment being appealed.
Stay of Execution — Imminent Threat of Execution
An order of stay will issue only if there is actual or presently threatened execution. There must be a direct and immediate danger of execution of the decree. There should be unequivocal evidence showing that unconditional steps conveying a gravity of purpose and imminent prospect of execution of the decree have been taken by the respondent. The evidence of imminent danger of execution is not strong enough in the absence of a warrant of execution or a notice to show cause why execution should not issue from the executing court.
Stay of Execution — Substantial Loss — Money Decrees
Satisfaction of a money decree does not ordinarily pose the danger of rendering a pending 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 refers to any loss of real worth or value as distinguished from a loss that is merely nominal, but cannot mean the ordinary loss to which every judgment debtor is necessarily subjected when deprived of property in consequence of losing a case.
Stay of Execution — Security for Due Performance — Money Decrees
In the case of a money decree, furnishing security for due performance of the decree denotes depositing the disputed amount. Courts have been reluctant to order security for due performance of the decree and have instead been keen to order security for costs, because the requirement and insistence on a practice that mandates security for the entire decretal amount is likely to stifle appeals. The court may, as an equitable measure, order the deposit of a portion of the decretal amount to provide partial satisfaction of the decree, safeguarding the interests of both parties until the final determination of the appeal.
Tax Appeals — Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Where an application for review or appeal of a taxation decision has been lodged with a reviewing body, the reviewing body may make an order staying or otherwise affecting the operation or implementation of the decision under review or appeal, or a part of the decision, as the reviewing body considers appropriate for the purposes of securing the effectiveness of the proceeding and the determination of the application for review or appeal.
Stay of Execution — Balancing Hardship
The court has the duty to balance or weigh the scales of justice by ensuring that an appeal is not rendered nugatory while at the same time ensuring that a successful party is not impeded from the enjoyment of the fruits of judgment. It would be wrong to order a stay of proceedings pending appeal where the appeal is frivolous or where such order would inflict greater hardship than it would avoid. A successful party is prima facie entitled to the fruits of judgment.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (8)

  • 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)
  • 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
  • Zubeda Muhamad & Anor v Laila Kaka Wallia & Anor (Supreme Court Civil Reference No. 7 of 2016)
  • 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.

Mityana Foods & Beverages Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (Miscellaneous Application 2397 of 2025) [2026] UGCommC 209 (7 January 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.