Wakilii

Nile Breweries Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority and Others (Civil Appeal No. 14 of 2022)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 271 · 2025 Appeal Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from the Tax Appeals Tribunal arising from consolidated miscellaneous applications concerning contempt and interpretation of a conditional injunction order
Decision
Contempt finding and sanctions set aside; Tribunal's interpretation of section 15 upheld for different reasons

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 held that the Tax Appeals Tribunal abused its contempt powers by finding the appellant in civil contempt when it only possessed jurisdiction over criminal contempt ex facie curiae under section 37 of The Tax Appeals Tribunals Act. On interpretation of section 15, the Court held that 'tax assessed' includes both self-assessments and additional assessments by the tax authority, and that the 30% deposit requirement applies only to the amount in dispute submitted to the Tribunal's jurisdiction. The Court applied a purposive approach to statutory interpretation, consulting The Tax Procedures Code Act 2014 to clarify ambiguous terms. The appeal was allowed in part; the contempt finding and sanctions were set aside.

Outcome

Contempt finding and sanctions set aside; Tribunal's interpretation of section 15 upheld for different reasons

Facts

Nile Breweries Limited made self-assessments for Local Excise Duty and Value Added Tax in 2022. Following an audit, Uganda Revenue Authority raised additional administrative assessments. The appellant paid the self-assessed amounts but disputed the additional assessments. Pending determination of its application to the Tax Appeals Tribunal for review, the appellant sought a temporary injunction restraining collection of the disputed tax. The Tribunal granted the injunction on condition that the appellant pay 30% of the tax in dispute or that not in dispute, whichever is greater. URA demanded 30% of the tax in dispute; the appellant contended it had already paid the undisputed amount which exceeded 30% of the disputed amount. URA issued third party agency notices to Stanbic Bank and Standard Chartered Bank, which both declined to honour. URA then filed an application for contempt against all three parties. The appellant filed an application seeking interpretation of the conditional order. The Tribunal consolidated both applications, found all three parties in contempt, and imposed fines totalling shs. 80,000,000 plus general damages.

Issues

  1. Whether the Tax Appeals Tribunal had jurisdiction to make a finding of contempt against the appellant.
  2. Whether the Tribunal correctly interpreted section 15 of The Tax Appeals Tribunals Act regarding the requirement to deposit 30% of the tax assessed or that part of the tax assessed not in dispute, whichever is greater.
  3. Whether the expression 'the tax assessed' in section 15 includes self-assessed tax or is limited to tax assessed by the tax administration.
  4. Whether the Tribunal erred in disregarding The Tax Procedures Code Act 2014 in interpreting section 15 of The Tax Appeals Tribunals Act.

Orders

  • The first ground of appeal succeeds.
  • The finding of contempt against the appellant and the resultant sanctions are set aside.
  • The appellant is awarded half the costs of the appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Appeals — Scope of appealable decisions from Tax Appeals Tribunal
Appeals lie to the High Court from final decisions made in proceedings before the Tax Appeals Tribunal including applications for review of a taxation decision and all ancillary final orders made before, during and after such proceedings, which are separate but related to the main application for review.
Contempt Powers — Distinction between civil and criminal contempt
The Tax Appeals Tribunal's powers in relation to contempt ex facie curiae are limited by section 37 of The Tax Appeals Tribunals Act to criminal contempt. The Tribunal is not vested with power over contempt ex facie curiae of a civil nature.
Tax Legislation — Purposive approach to interpretation
In interpreting tax legislation, courts should adopt the modern or purposive approach rather than the literal approach, reading the words of the statute in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the objects of the Act and the intention of Parliament.
Tax Legislation — Use of later statutes to interpret earlier statutes
Words and expressions defined in a later Act on the same subject may provide an authoritative exposition of the same words in similar context in earlier statutes based on the presumption that the Legislature intended that the same interpretation should be followed for construction of those words in the earlier statutes.
Tax Assessment — Meaning of 'tax assessed' in section 15 of The Tax Appeals Tribunals Act
The expression 'tax assessed' in section 15(1) of The Tax Appeals Tribunals Act does not exclusively refer to an assessment by the tax administration; it also includes a self-assessment. Self-assessment under the voluntary compliance scheme is an actual assessment of the amount of tax payable, not merely a report of taxable income.
Tax Appeals — Application of 30% deposit requirement
The requirement to deposit 30% of the tax assessed or that part of the tax assessed not in dispute, whichever is greater, applies only to the scope of the amount in dispute submitted to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Where the entire amount stated in an additional assessment is disputed, the 30% deposit requirement applies to the entire sum stated in the additional assessment, not to the self-assessed amount previously paid.
Contempt Powers — Proper remedy for non-compliance with conditional order
Failure to comply with the deposit requirement as a condition for a temporary injunction order ought to result in the lapsing of the injunction and possible dismissal of the application, rather than invocation of contempt powers. The contempt power is an extraordinary remedy to be carefully restricted to cases of actual obstruction.

Legislation cited (16)

Cases cited (20)

  • Mohamed Kalisa v Gladys Nyangire Karumu and Others (S.C. Civil Reference No. 139 of 2013)
  • Wansey v. Perkins, 135 ER. 55 at 63
  • Perry v. Skinner, 150 ER 843 at 845
  • Becke v. Smith (1836) 2 M&W 191; (1836) 150 ER 724 at 726
  • Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 457 (1892)
  • Partington v. Attorney General (1869) LR 4 HL 100
  • The Cape Brandy Syndicate v The Commissioners of Inland Revenue [1921] 1 KB 64
  • W.M. Cory & Son Ltd v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue [1965] 1 ALL E.R 917
  • Pepper (Inspector of Taxes) v. Hart [1992] UKHL 3; [1993] AC 593; [1992] 3 WLR 1032
  • News Corp UK & Ireland Ltd. v. Commissioners for His Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2023] UKSC 7; [2024] AC 89
  • Stubart Investments Ltd. v. The Queen, [1984] 1 SCR 536
  • For Women Scotland Ltd v. The Scottish Ministers [2025] UKSC 16
  • Florence Dawaru v Angumale Albino and Another (H.C. Misc. Application No. 96 of 2016)
  • Michaelson v. United States, 266 U.S. 42 (1924)
  • In re Hayes, 48 200 N. C. 133, 156 S. E.2d 791 (1931)
  • Attorney General of Québec v. Hébert [1900] 2 Q.B. 36
  • ex parte Robinson, 86 U.S. (19 Wall.) 505 (1873)
  • Chrysler Canada Ltd. v. Canada (Competition Tribunal), [1992] 2 SCR 394
  • Re Diamond and the Ontario Municipal Board, [1962] O.R. 328
  • United Nurses of Alberta v. Alberta (Attorney General), (1990) 104 A.R. 246

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nile Breweries Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority and Others (Civil Appeal No. 14 of 2022) [2025] UGCommC 271 (27 August 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.