Wakilii

Nived Enterprises Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (Miscellaneous Application 59 of 2023)

Tribunal · [2023] UGTAT 49 · 2023 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for temporary injunction to restrain collection of withholding tax on rice imports
Decision
Application for temporary injunction dismissed

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 Tax Appeals Tribunal dismissed the application for a temporary injunction. The Tribunal held that a second temporary injunction cannot be granted in the same application where a first injunction is still subsisting. The applicant failed to establish a prima facie case because it had not filed an objection to the tax assessment and there was no objection decision to review. The Tribunal further held that the applicant would not suffer irreparable loss as any taxes wrongly paid could be refunded. The application was dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Outcome

Application for temporary injunction dismissed

Facts

Nived Enterprises Limited imports rice from Tanzania to Uganda. On 25 May 2022, it was granted a withholding tax exemption certificate valid from 1 July 2022 to 30 June 2023. On 29 March 2023, the Uganda Revenue Authority revoked the exemption certificate. On 5 April 2023, the applicant was granted a temporary injunction to have 5,000 tons of rice released. The applicant then sought to import an additional 8,540 tons of rice from Tanzania. The respondent issued withholding tax assessments totalling Shs 576,831,130 on the applicant's rice imports. The applicant filed the main application challenging the assessments and the revocation of its exemption certificate. The applicant then filed this application seeking a second temporary injunction to restrain the respondent from collecting withholding tax on the 8,540 tons of rice pending determination of the main application. The respondent contended that the applicant had not followed proper procedure by filing an objection to the assessment and that no objection decision had been issued.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant is entitled to a temporary injunction restraining the respondent from enforcing collection measures against rice imports.
  2. Whether the applicant established a prima facie case with a probability of success.
  3. Whether the applicant would suffer irreparable injury which cannot be adequately compensated by damages.
  4. Whether the balance of convenience favours the applicant.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunctions — Multiple Injunctions in Same Application
A tribunal or court cannot grant two temporary injunctions in the same application. Where a first injunction has been granted and remains subsisting, the applicant must either apply to vary the existing injunction or have it vacated before seeking a fresh one.
Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunctions — Speculative Relief
An injunction cannot serve preemptive purposes where the items or circumstances giving rise to the claim have not yet materialised. An injunction cannot be sought based on speculation.
Tax Law — Tax Appeals — Objection Decision as Prerequisite
An objection decision is a prerequisite for lodging an application for review before the Tax Appeals Tribunal. Where no objection has been filed and no objection decision issued, the applicant cannot establish a prima facie case for purposes of a temporary injunction.
Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunctions — Irreparable Loss
A taxpayer who is paying taxes in accordance with statutory obligations cannot be said to suffer irreparable loss where any taxes wrongly or overpaid can be refunded if the tribunal finds the assessment was unlawful.

Legislation cited (12)

Cases cited (11)

  • American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] ALLER 504
  • Kiyimba Kaggwa v Hajji Abdul Nasser Katende (1985) HCB 43
  • GAPCO Uganda Limited v Kaweesa and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 259 of 2023)
  • Victoria Construction Works Limited v Uganda National Roads Authority (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 601 of 2010)
  • Caroline Kahamutima v Commissioner General of Customs, URA (Miscellaneous Application No. 51 of 2021)
  • Gakou Brothers Enterprises Limited v URA (Application No. 20 of 2020)
  • Cable Corporation (U) Limited v URA (High Court Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2011)
  • Tony Wasswa v Joseph Kakooza [1987] HCB 79
  • Carlton Douglas Kasirye v Sheena Ahumuza Bageine (Miscellaneous Application No. 148 of 2020)
  • Alcohol Association Uganda, Nile Breweries Limited & 38 Others v Attorney General & URA (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 744 of 2019)
  • Otimong Dismas and 2 Others v Eastern Miponing Ltd (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 148 of 2015)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nived Enterprises Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (Miscellaneous Application 59 of 2023) 2023 UGTAT 49 (19 May 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.