Wakilii

Namutebi v Uganda Revenue Authority (Application 79 of 2022)

Tribunal · [2023] UGTAT 45 · 2023 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application challenging the sale of goods by URA on grounds of abandonment
Decision
Application dismissed with costs to the respondent

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 Tribunal held that URA lawfully disposed of the applicant's goods under s.60 of the EACCMA because the goods had been entered for home consumption and remained in the warehouse for over four years beyond the statutory 14-day removal period. The applicant's election to treat her appeal as allowed was invalid because the appeal was lodged outside the 30-day statutory period prescribed under s.229(1) of the EACCMA. Application dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Application dismissed with costs to the respondent

Facts

The applicant imported assorted goods in June 2014 valued at UGX 120,000,000 which were warehoused at Multiple ICD. In June 2015, after partial payment of taxes covering only 4 of 16 items, the goods were entered for home consumption and exited via exit note 2015/X/63386. The applicant did not remove the goods from the warehouse, citing inability to clear dues with the shipping line. In March 2019, nearly four years later, the applicant discovered URA was selling the goods as abandoned. A meeting resulted in an agreement for the applicant to collect the goods by 18 March 2019, but she failed to do so. The goods were sold by private treaty to Sserugera Obeed. The applicant appealed the sale on 15 May 2019, claiming it was illegal. When URA did not respond within 30 days, the applicant elected to treat the appeal as allowed under s.229(5) of the EACCMA. URA rejected this election in March 2022.

Issues

  1. Whether the respondent acted lawfully in disposing of the applicant's goods?
  2. Whether the applicant's election to treat the appeal of 15 May 2019 as allowed is valid?
  3. Whether the respondent's decision of 31 March 2022 is valid?

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Customs Law — Warehoused Goods versus Goods Entered for Home Consumption — Distinction
Goods cease to be warehoused goods once import duty has been paid and they are entered for home consumption under s.2(2)(b) of the EACCMA. Section 57 which governs warehoused goods does not apply to goods entered for home consumption; such goods are governed by s.60 of the EACCMA.
Customs Law — Disposal of Goods Entered for Home Consumption — Commissioner's Powers
Under s.60(1) and (3) of the EACCMA, goods entered for home consumption must be removed from a warehouse within 14 days. Where goods are not removed within this period, they are forfeited to the State and the Commissioner may dispose of them as he directs without requirement to give notice or sell by public auction.
Customs Law — Application for Review — Time Limits under s.229 EACCMA
An application for review under s.229(1) of the EACCMA must be lodged within 30 days of the date of the decision or omission. An application filed outside this period is not properly before the Commissioner, and the deemed allowance provisions of s.229(4) and (5) do not apply to applications that fail to comply with the time requirement in s.229(1).
Weight of Evidence — Contemporaneous versus Subsequent Accounts
Greater weight is given by courts to evidence captured in the immediate aftermath of an incident as compared to evidence produced long after the occurrence of the events giving rise to the matters in issue.

Legislation cited (15)

  • East African Community Customs Management Act 2004 s.2(1)
  • East African Community Customs Management Act 2004 s.2(2)(a)
  • East African Community Customs Management Act 2004 s.2(2)(b)
  • East African Community Customs Management Act 2004 s.57(1)
  • East African Community Customs Management Act 2004 s.57(2)
  • East African Community Customs Management Act 2004 s.57(3)
  • East African Community Customs Management Act 2004 s.60(1)
  • East African Community Customs Management Act 2004 s.60(2)
  • East African Community Customs Management Act 2004 s.60(3)
  • East African Community Customs Management Act 2004 s.229(1)
  • East African Community Customs Management Act 2004 s.229(2)
  • East African Community Customs Management Act 2004 s.229(3)
  • East African Community Customs Management Act 2004 s.229(4)
  • East African Community Customs Management Act 2004 s.229(5)
  • East African Community Customs Management Act 2004 s.229(6)

Cases cited (7)

  • Akiphar Pharmaceuticals v Commissioner Customs URA (Civil Suit No. 366 of 2012)
  • Makula International Ltd v His Eminence Cardinal Nsubuga and Another (Civil Appeal No. 04 of 1987)
  • Photon Technologies Ltd v Commissioner General URA (Miscellaneous Cause No. 14 of 2016)
  • Robert Coussens v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 08 of 1999)
  • Game Discount World Uganda Ltd v URA (Civil Appeal No. 0039 of 2021)
  • Bank of Baroda Uganda Ltd v URA (Civil Appeal No. 71 of 2013)
  • Multi-Konsults Ltd v URA (TAT Application No. 72 of 2019)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Namutebi v Uganda Revenue Authority (Application 79 of 2022) 2023 UGTAT 45 (24 July 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.