Wakilii

Sunshare Investment Company Limited v Commissioner General Uganda Revenue Authority and Another (Miscellaneous Cause No. 216 of 2023)

High Court · [2026] UGHCCD 157 · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for judicial review of tax assessment decision
Decision
Application dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; matter to be pursued before Tax Appeals Tribunal

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 lacks jurisdiction to entertain judicial review of tax assessment decisions where the dispute concerns the correctness of assessment methodology, computations, and objection findings. Such matters fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tax Appeals Tribunal under the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act and Tax Procedures Code Act. Application dismissed.

Outcome

Application dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; matter to be pursued before Tax Appeals Tribunal

Facts

Sunshare Investment Company Limited, a beverage manufacturer and petroleum products seller, had its tax for July 2017 to June 2021 assessed, audited, and paid. URA subsequently issued additional assessments totalling UGX 2,464,290,101 for Income Tax and VAT based on bank statements and mobile money transactions of individual employees and suppliers, alleging undeclared revenue of UGX 6,520,488,258. The applicant objected, arguing the assessments were based on third-party accounts not belonging to the company and that expenses and deductions were ignored. After objections were disallowed and Alternative Dispute Resolution rejected, the applicant sought judicial review challenging the procedure and legality of the assessment decision dated 1 August 2023.

Issues

  1. Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain a judicial review application challenging tax assessment decisions.
  2. Whether the applicant was required to exhaust alternative remedies under tax legislation before seeking judicial review.
  3. Whether the dispute concerns procedural impropriety amenable to judicial review or substantive tax assessment matters within the jurisdiction of the Tax Appeals Tribunal.

Orders

  • The preliminary objection raised by the Respondents succeeds.
  • The dispute concerns taxation decisions, assessment methodology and objection findings arising under tax legislation and the rightful forum with jurisdiction is the Tax Appeals Tribunal.
  • Miscellaneous Cause No.216 of 2023 is dismissed.
  • Costs of the application are awarded to the Respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Judicial Review — Jurisdiction — Tax Disputes — Exclusive Jurisdiction of Tax Appeals Tribunal
Where a dispute concerns the correctness of tax assessment methodology, computations, and objection findings, it constitutes a taxation question falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tax Appeals Tribunal under Section 14 of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act and Section 25 of the Tax Procedures Code Act, and the High Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain it by way of judicial review.
Administrative Law — Jurisdiction — Distinction Between Process and Merits
Although judicial review concerns the legality of administrative process rather than merits, where an application couched as judicial review contests assessment methodology, disputes figures, challenges computations, and attacks the basis for determining undeclared revenue, the real dispute concerns the correctness of assessment itself and remains a taxation question beyond the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court.
Tax Law — Tax Assessment — Specialised Statutory Mechanism for Disputes
The statutory framework under the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act and Tax Procedures Code Act creates a specialised mechanism for resolution of tax disputes, and even where the Uganda Revenue Authority is alleged to have erred in assessment or relied upon improper methodology, such matters remain tax disputes to be resolved through the statutory mechanism rather than by judicial review.

Legislation cited (7)

  • Judicature Act Cap.13 s.33
  • Judicature Act Cap.13 s.36
  • Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules S.I No.11 of 2009 r.3
  • Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules S.I No.11 of 2009 r.6
  • Tax Appeals Tribunal Act Cap.341 s.14
  • Tax Procedures Code Act Cap.343 s.25
  • Constitution of the Republic of Uganda art.27

Cases cited (8)

  • Ocip Moses and Others v Attorney General and Auditor General (HCMA No. 60 of 2013)
  • Commissioner General URA v Zain International BV (CACA No. 11 of 2012)
  • ABC Capital Bank and Others v Attorney General and Commissioner General URA (Constitutional Petition No. 14 of 2018)
  • Makula International Ltd v His Eminence Cardinal Nsubuga and Another (1982) HCB 11
  • Desai v Warsama [1967] EA 351
  • Uganda Revenue Authority v Rabbo Enterprises (U) Ltd and Mt Elgon Hardware Ltd (SCCA No. 112 of 2004)
  • Manji Consulting Ltd v Commissioner General URA (Miscellaneous Cause No. 184 of 2022)
  • Salim Ali Bhai and Others v URA (Miscellaneous Cause No. 123 of 2020)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Sunshare Investment Company Limited v Commissioner General Uganda Revenue Authority and Another (Miscellaneous Cause No. 216 of 2023) [2026] UGHCCD 157 (25 May 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.