Wakilii

The National Outdoor Advertising Contractors Association Ltd v Kampala Capital City Authority (Miscellaneous Cause No. 106 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGHCCD 148 · 2025 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for judicial review seeking certiorari, prohibition, and permanent injunction against KCCA's Outdoor Advertising Ordinance 2025
Decision
Application partly allowed on the ground of irrationality; implementation of new advertising rates suspended pending comprehensive review

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 KCCA's Outdoor Advertising Ordinance 2025 was validly enacted under delegated legislative powers and was not illegal or procedurally improper. However, the court found the advertising rates in the Ordinance to be irrational, with increases ranging from 2,400% to 5,900%, defying logic and acceptable standards of reasonableness. The court distinguished fees from taxes, holding that outdoor advertising fees need not be imposed by a specific Act of Parliament as they confer a special benefit rather than constituting a common burden. The application succeeded in part on the ground of irrationality, and the court suspended implementation of the new rates pending comprehensive review.

Outcome

Application partly allowed on the ground of irrationality; implementation of new advertising rates suspended pending comprehensive review

Facts

The Applicant, an association of outdoor advertising companies incorporated in 2007, challenged KCCA's Outdoor Advertising Ordinance 2025 which prescribed fees for outdoor advertising. In 2019, the Applicant had successfully challenged KCCA's collection of advertising fees under a policy, with the court ruling in 2020 that no tax can be imposed except under authority of an Act of Parliament. Following that ruling, KCCA enacted the Outdoor Advertising Ordinance 2025, published in the Uganda Gazette in January 2025, setting out advertising rates and fees. The Applicant contended the Ordinance was insufficient as it was not an Act of Parliament as required by Article 152 of the Constitution. The Ordinance introduced advertising rates representing increases of between 2,400% and 5,900% over previous rates. KCCA invited the Applicant to participate in consultations in April 2022, but the Applicant declined, maintaining that an Ordinance was improper and only an Act of Parliament would suffice.

Issues

  1. Whether the decision and unilateral actions by the Respondent to levy, collect and appropriate fees as tax under the Kampala Capital City (Outdoor Advertising) Ordinance 2025 without jurisdiction and due process of the law is void, ultra vires, illegal, irrational and unlawful.
  2. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • An order suspending the implementation of the new advertising rates in the Ordinance until a comprehensive review is made to align it with an equitable and fair taxation policy and rationality.
  • Applicant's prayer for an order of permanent injunction denied.
  • Applicant's prayer for an order of prohibition denied.
  • Applicant's prayers for an order of general, exemplary and aggravated damages denied.
  • A prorated 33% of taxed costs awarded to the Applicant.
  • Interest at 8% on costs from date of judgment until payment in full.

Rules and key headnotes

Judicial Review — Grounds — Illegality — Acting Within Statutory Powers
A public authority acts within its powers where it enacts legislation pursuant to delegated legislative authority conferred by statute, provided the legislation does not contradict the Constitution or parent Act and follows prescribed procedures for enactment.
Constitutional Requirements — Distinction Between Taxes and Fees
A fee differs from a tax in that a fee is paid for a special benefit or privilege with an element of quid pro quo, whereas a tax is a mandatory payment for the common benefit without reference to specific services rendered. Fees for outdoor advertising, which confer a special privilege to advertise to potential customers, are fees and not taxes, and therefore need not be imposed by a specific Act of Parliament under Article 152 of the Constitution.
Delegated Legislation — Ordinances — Validity and Legal Effect
Ordinances enacted by local government authorities pursuant to delegated legislative powers under the Local Governments Act and Kampala Capital City Act are valid legislation, provided they are not inconsistent with the Constitution or any Act of Parliament, are passed following prescribed procedures, and are certified by the Attorney General. Such ordinances occupy a recognized place in the hierarchy of laws and need not be elevated to Acts of Parliament for matters of local government administration.
Judicial Review — Grounds — Irrationality — Wednesbury Unreasonableness
A decision or action is irrational and subject to judicial review where it is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority, addressing itself to the facts and law, could have made such a decision, or where it defies logic and acceptable moral standards. Advertising rate increases ranging from 2,400% to 5,900% are irrational and defy logic, warranting suspension of implementation pending review.
Principles of Taxation — Equity and Fairness — Reasonableness of Tax Burden
Taxation or charging of rates must pass the test of fairness and the burden imposed must not be usurious or crippling. Tax rates that are excessively high discourage economic activities such as investment and consumption, and governments must balance revenue generation with the economic wellbeing of taxpayers in accordance with constitutional objectives of social and economic justice.
Judicial Review — Grounds — Procedural Impropriety — Right to Be Heard
There is no procedural impropriety where a public authority invites affected parties to participate in consultations on proposed legislation and those parties decline to participate. A party that chooses not to engage in a consultative process cannot later claim it was denied the right to be heard.
Taxation — Article 152 — Scope of Application
Article 152 of the Constitution, which provides that no tax shall be imposed except under authority of an Act of Parliament, applies to taxes properly so called — mandatory payments for the common benefit — and not to fees charged for special benefits or privileges. Where a charge confers a special benefit with an element of quid pro quo, it is a fee and may be prescribed by delegated legislation pursuant to statutory authority.

Legislation cited (35)

Cases cited (26)

  • Dr Lam-Lagoro James v Muni University (Miscellaneous Cause No. 7 of 2016)
  • Mrs Geraldine Ssali Busuulwa v NSSF & Anor (Miscellaneous Cause No. 32 of 2016)
  • Thugitho Festo v Nebbi Municipal Council (Miscellaneous Application No. 15 of 2017)
  • Cape Brandy Syndicate v IRC [1921] KB 64
  • Kampala Nissan Uganda Ltd v URA
  • Rock Petroleum (U) Ltd v URA (Commercial Suit No. 9 of 2009)
  • Twinomuhangi v Kabale District and Others [2006] HCB 130
  • Dr Kasozi Charles v AG & Anor (Miscellaneous Cause No. 206 of 2018)
  • Nazarali Punjwani v Kampala District Land Board & Anor (Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005)
  • Sanywa Twaha v KCCA & Another (Miscellaneous Cause No. 164 of 2017)
  • Ministry for Agriculture v Brennann [1999] 3 IR 228
  • Commissioner General Uganda Revenue Authority v Edulink Holdings Limited & Ors (Civil Appeal No. 178 of 2021)
  • ATC Uganda Limited v Kampala Capital City Authority (Civil Suit No. 323 of 2018)
  • Eaton Towers Uganda Limited v Kampala Capital City Authority (Miscellaneous Cause No. 302 of 2018)
  • Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v GTL Infrastructure Ltd and Others (Civil Appeal Nos. 5360-5363 of 2013)
  • Philadelphia Trade Industry Limited v Kampala Capital City Authority (Civil Revision No. 15 of 2012)
  • Mutembuli Yusuf v Nagwomu Moses Musa (Election Petition Appeal No. 43 of 2016)
  • The National Outdoor Advertising Contractors Association Limited v KCCA (Miscellaneous Application No. 407 of 2019)
  • Odonga Alex Oryanga v Nabillah Naggayi Ssempala and Ors (Constitutional Petition No. 9 of 2016)
  • State of Rajasthan v Sajjan Lal AIR 1975 SC 706
  • Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223
  • Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 9 Exch 341
  • Kibimba Rice Ltd v Umar Salim (Civil Appeal No. 17 of 1992)
  • Robert Cuossens v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1999) [2000] UGSC 2
  • Uganda Commercial Bank v Kigozi [2002] 1 EA 305
  • Ignatius Loyola Malungu v Inspector-General of Government (Miscellaneous Cause No. 59 of 2016)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

The National Outdoor Advertising Contractors Association Ltd v Kampala Capital City Authority (Miscellaneous Cause No. 106 of 2025) [2025] UGHCCD 148 (4 September 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.