Wakilii

Uganda Revenue Authority v DAVEX Company Limited (Miscellaneous Application 76 of 2023)

Tribunal · [2023] UGTAT 69 · 2023 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to review an order granting a temporary injunction restraining tax collection measures
Decision
Application to review 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 an application by Uganda Revenue Authority to review an order granting a temporary injunction restraining tax collection. The Tribunal held that grounds for review under Order 40 of the Civil Procedure Rules were not established. The applicant's contentions regarding the respondent's failure to exhaust objection procedures and the alleged invalidity of exemption certificates were matters that ought to have been raised at the hearing of the temporary injunction application, not at review stage. The information was within the applicant's knowledge at the time of the original hearing and did not constitute new evidence or error apparent on the face of the record.

Outcome

Application to review temporary injunction dismissed

Facts

DAVEX Company Limited imports rice from Tanzania to Uganda. Uganda Revenue Authority cancelled DAVEX's Withholding Tax exemption. DAVEX filed Miscellaneous Application 37 of 2023 and obtained a temporary injunction restraining URA from enforcing collection measures in respect of 6% WHT of Shs. 1,849,416,192. The Tribunal ordered DAVEX to pay 30% of the disputed tax. URA subsequently filed this application seeking to review and set aside the temporary injunction, alleging that the exemption certificates DAVEX relied upon had been revoked and were of no legal effect. URA also contended that DAVEX had not exhausted the objection procedures under the East African Community Customs Management Act before approaching the Tribunal. Only URA filed submissions. DAVEX filed an affidavit in response but no written submissions.

Issues

  1. Whether there is sufficient cause for the court to review the order granting a temporary injunction.
  2. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • Application dismissed with costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Review of Orders — Grounds for Review — New Evidence or Error Apparent on Face of Record
An application for review under Order 40 of the Civil Procedure Rules requires the applicant to establish discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the applicant's knowledge at the time the order was made, or to demonstrate mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or other sufficient reason.
Civil Procedure — Review of Orders — Matters Within Knowledge at Original Hearing — Not Grounds for Review
Matters that were within the applicant's knowledge at the time of the original hearing and that ought to have been raised at that hearing do not constitute new evidence warranting review of the order made.
Tax Law — Tax Exemption Certificates — Knowledge of Issuing Authority — Status of Certificates
Where a revenue authority issues a tax exemption certificate, information regarding the expiry or revocation of that certificate is within the authority's knowledge and cannot be relied upon as new evidence in an application to review an order made in reliance on that certificate.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (6)

  • Gakou and Brothers Enterprises Ltd v Uganda Revenue Authority (Application No. 29 of 2020)
  • Game Discount World (U) Ltd v Uganda Revenue Authority (Application No. 025 of 2020)
  • Alcohol Association of Uganda and another v The Attorney General and Uganda Revenue Authority (Miscellaneous Application No. 744 of 2019)
  • AZK Services Limited v Crane Bank Limited (Civil Suit No. 334 of 2016)
  • Red Concepts Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (Application No. 36 of 2018)
  • Samwiri Mussa v Rose Achen (1978) HCB 297

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda Revenue Authority v DAVEX Company Limited (Miscellaneous Application 76 of 2023) 2023 UGTAT 69 (8 August 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.