Wakilii

Uganda Revenue Authority v M-Kopa Uganda Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 697 of 2019)

High Court · [2022] UGCOMMC 18 · 2022 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for interim stay of execution pending appeal from Tax Appeals Tribunal decision
Decision
Application for stay of execution dismissed with costs to the Respondent

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

Application for stay of execution dismissed. Court held that while the application was not brought with unreasonable delay and the applicant expressed willingness to furnish security, the applicant failed to establish substantial loss through admissible evidence. Counsel's submission from the bar regarding substantial loss was inadmissible. Without evidence of substantial loss, a mandatory criterion under Order 43 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the application could not succeed.

Outcome

Application for stay of execution dismissed with costs to the Respondent

Facts

The Respondent imported solar equipment and was assessed tax of UGX 429,603,357 by the Applicant. The Respondent contested this assessment before the Tax Appeals Tribunal in TAT Application No. 15 of 2017. The Tribunal set aside the tax assessment and found in favour of the Respondent. The Applicant appealed to the High Court (Civil Appeal No. 30 of 2019) and filed this application seeking interim stay of execution of the Tribunal's orders. The Respondent had demanded refund of 30% of the tax in dispute. The Applicant argued that execution would render the appeal nugatory and expressed willingness to furnish security. The Respondent contended that the 30% payment was a statutory requirement, not execution, and that the application was brought unreasonably late.

Issues

  1. Whether the application discloses sufficient grounds for grant of stay of execution pending appeal

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Requirements for Grant — Substantial Loss
An applicant seeking stay of execution pending appeal must establish through admissible evidence in affidavit form that substantial loss will result if the stay is not granted; counsel's submissions from the bar cannot substitute for evidence in the affidavit.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Three Mandatory Criteria
Under Order 43 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules, all three criteria must be satisfied for grant of stay of execution: substantial loss to the applicant, absence of unreasonable delay, and provision of security for due performance of the decree; failure to establish any one criterion is fatal to the application.
Civil Procedure — Evidence — Affidavit Evidence versus Submissions from the Bar
Affidavits in an application serve as evidence to support the remedies sought; submissions by counsel from the bar are inadmissible as evidence and cannot cure deficiencies in the affidavit evidence.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (3)

  • Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Busingye (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 18 of 1990)
  • Nalwoga Gladys v Edco Limited & 2 Others (Revision Cause No. 05 of 2012)
  • Dr. Ahmed Muhammed Kisuule v Greenlad Bank (In Liquidation) (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 07 of 2010)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda Revenue Authority v M-Kopa Uganda Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 697 of 2019) [2022] UGCommC 18 (13 April 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.