Nile Breweries Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (Miscellaneous Application 87 of 2024)

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.

Holding

The Tax Appeals Tribunal held that it has inherent jurisdiction to permit payment of the statutory 30% deposit in installments where substantial amounts are involved and immediate full payment would jeopardize the applicant's business operations. The Tribunal granted the temporary injunction and allowed Nile Breweries to pay the required 30% of disputed tax in four equal installments, finding that a prima facie case had been established and that the applicant would suffer irreparable injury affecting not only its own operations but also suppliers and purchasers if the injunction were refused.

Outcome

Temporary injunction granted; Applicant permitted to pay statutory deposit in installments pending hearing of main appeal

Facts

Nile Breweries Limited challenged a tax assessment by Uganda Revenue Authority for Shs. 1,388,178,955, alleging that URA unlawfully assessed Local Excise Duty on exported goods and applied 18% VAT instead of the zero rate applicable to exports. The Applicant sought a temporary injunction to prevent enforcement of the assessment pending the main appeal. Section 15 of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act requires payment of 30% of disputed tax before an appeal can proceed. The Applicant requested permission to pay this amount in four equal installments rather than in one lump sum, arguing that immediate full payment would jeopardize its cash flow and business operations. The Respondent opposed the application, arguing that failure to pay the full 30% upfront meant the Applicant had no locus to appear before the Tribunal and that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to permit installment payments.

Issues

1. Whether the Applicant should be granted a temporary injunction restraining the Respondent from enforcing the tax assessment pending determination of the main appeal.
2. Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to permit the Applicant to pay the statutory 30% of disputed tax in installments rather than in one lump sum.
3. Whether the Applicant has established a prima facie case with a probability of success.
4. Whether the Applicant will suffer irreparable injury if the application is not granted.
5. Whether the balance of convenience favours the grant of the injunction.

Orders

• Application granted.
• Temporary injunction issued restraining the Respondent from enforcing the tax assessment pending determination of the main appeal.
• Applicant permitted to pay 30% of the disputed tax in four equal installments of Shs. 1,388,178,955 each.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (2)

• Tax Appeals Tribunal Act s.15
• Civil Procedure Act s.98

Cases cited (12)

• MTN Uganda Ltd v Uganda Revenue Authority (TAT Application No. 15 of 2018)
• Century Bottling Company Limited V. URA (Miscellaneous Application No. 32 of 20...)
• Uganda Project Implementation and Management Centre v Uganda Revenue Authority (Constitutional Appeal No. 02 of 2009)
• Metcash Trading Co. LTD V Commissioner for South African Revenue Services and Another
• E.L.T Kiyimba Kaggwa v Haji Abdu Nasser Katende [1985] HCB 43
• Victor Construction Works Limited V Uganda Revenue Authority
• Horizon Coaches Ltd v Edward Rubangaranga & Anor (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 18 of 2009)
• Cape Brandy Syndicate v Inland Revenue Commission [1921] 1 KB 64
• Kiyimba Kaggwa v Haji Katende Abdu-Nasser (Civil Suit No. 2109 of 1984)
• Kigongo Edward Nakabale v Kakooza Rogers & Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 144 of 2017)
• Robert Kavuma vs. V...
• Giella v Cassman Brown & Co (1973) EA 358

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