Wakilii

Uganda Railways Corporation v Uganda Revenue Authority (Civil Appeal No. 104 of 2019)

Court of Appeal · [2022] UGCA 228 · 2022 Appeal Struck Out AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Second appeal from a High Court (Commercial Division) decision on appeal from an objection decision of the Commissioner General of URA on VAT liability
Decision
Appeal struck out for want of jurisdiction; the High Court's decision was held to be a nullity as it lacked appellate jurisdiction

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 Court of Appeal struck out the appeal on jurisdictional grounds. It held that an appeal is a creature of statute and that the VAT Act (s.33C and s.33D) provides no right of appeal directly to the High Court from an objection decision of the Commissioner General; such decisions must first be taken to the Tax Appeals Tribunal, with the High Court exercising only second-appellate jurisdiction. Since the appellant appealed straight to the High Court, that court had no appellate jurisdiction, rendering its decision a nullity. Consequently the purported appeal to the Court of Appeal originated from a decision made without jurisdiction and could not stand. The substantive VAT questions were not determined.

Outcome

Appeal struck out for want of jurisdiction; the High Court's decision was held to be a nullity as it lacked appellate jurisdiction

Facts

In April 2006 the appellant, Uganda Railways Corporation, granted a 25-year concession to Rift Valley Railways Uganda Ltd (RVR) to use its conceded assets in providing freight services, at a concession fee of 11.1% of RVR's gross annual revenue. In July 2014 the appellant sought to amend its VAT returns prior to July 2013, contending the concession fees were exempt as a lease of immovable property under the Second Schedule Part 1(f) of the VAT Act. The Commissioner General ruled the fees were a standard-rated supply of services and, on a private ruling under s.80, that the appellant had to account for VAT. Dissatisfied with the objection decision, the appellant lodged an appeal directly to the High Court (Commercial Division) under s.33D of the VAT Act, without first applying to the Tax Appeals Tribunal. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding the concession was a lease/supply of goods but incidental to the principal supply of freight services and thus not exempt. The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether the High Court had appellate jurisdiction to hear an appeal directly from an objection decision of the Commissioner General under the VAT Act.
  2. Whether the concession fees paid by the concessionaire to the appellant constituted a supply of goods by way of lease exempt from VAT, or were incidental to a standard-rated supply of freight services.

Orders

  • Appeal struck out.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Appeals — Appellate Jurisdiction — Creature of Statute
Appellate jurisdiction springs only from statute; there is no such thing as inherent appellate jurisdiction, and a court can only hear an appeal where a statute expressly confers the right of appeal and specifies the court or tribunal with jurisdiction.
VAT — Appeals — No Direct Appeal to High Court from Objection Decision
Under the VAT Act, a person dissatisfied with an objection decision of the Commissioner General must apply to the Tax Appeals Tribunal under s.33C; s.33D confers on the High Court only appellate jurisdiction to hear appeals from decisions of the Tax Appeals Tribunal, and there is no statutory right of appeal directly to the High Court from an objection decision.
Jurisdiction — Decision Without Jurisdiction — Nullity
A decision rendered by a court that lacks jurisdiction is a nullity, and an appeal originating from such a decision cannot be entertained by an appellate court and will be struck out.
VAT — Tribunal Procedure — Mandatory 30% Deposit
The statutory route of appeal to the Tax Appeals Tribunal requires payment of 30% of the tax in dispute (or the undisputed portion, whichever is greater) before lodging an application; circumventing this route by appealing directly to the High Court improperly avoids that requirement.

Legislation cited (22)

Cases cited (14)

  • Furness vs Bond [1888] 4 TLR 457
  • Harvey v Pratt [1965] 1 WLR 1025
  • Card Protection Plan Vs Commissioner Customs & Exercise Case C - 349/96
  • Uganda Taxi Operators and Drivers Association (UTODA) v Uganda Revenue Authority (Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2013)
  • Purple Parking Ltd vs HMRC 2009 SFTD 118
  • Cape Brandy Syndicate vs CIR [1921] 1 KB 64
  • Field Fisher Waterhouse LLP versus Commissioners of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs; judgment of 27/09/12 Case C - 392/11
  • Customs and the Exercise Commissioners Vs Midget and Baldwin (trading as Howden Court Hotel) (1998) STC 1189
  • Canadian National Railway Corporation vs Harris [1946] SCR 352 at 386
  • Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs vs The Honourable Society of Middle Temple, [2013] UKUT 0250 (TCC) Appeal No FTC/15/2012
  • Purple Parking Ltd, Parks Services Ltd Vs Revenue & Customs Commissioners (Case C - 117/11) [2012] BVC 268
  • Faaborg - Getting Linien VS vs Finanzamt Flensburg, Case C - 231/94
  • Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
  • Attorney General v Shah (No. 4) [1971] EA 50

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda Railways Corporation v Uganda Revenue Authority (Civil Appeal No. 104 of 2019) [2022] UGCA 228 (16 September 2022)
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.