Uganda Revenue Authority v National Social Security Fund (Civil Application 43 of 2023)

Observed later treatment

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.

Holding

The single Justice held that Rule 53(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules, requiring a panel of three to hear stay applications, is void to the extent of its inconsistency with Section 12 of the Judicature Act, which empowers a single Justice to exercise any Court of Appeal power in interlocutory matters. Sitting alone, the Justice therefore had jurisdiction. On the merits, the application for stay of execution was dismissed: the applicant failed to place any evidence establishing a prima facie case or likelihood of success, failed to prove irreparable damage or that the appeal would be rendered nugatory, and the balance of convenience favoured the respondent which held a judgment. Costs to abide the appeal.

Outcome

Application for stay of execution dismissed; interim order vacated

Facts

In 2014 the respondent, NSSF, filed a suit challenging a tax assessment raised by URA. The matter was referred to mediation, then transferred to the Tax Appeals Tribunal, which on 27 March 2020 held that interest payable to NSSF members was not a deductible allowance under the Income Tax Act and ordered payment of principal tax of Shs.30,521,703,065 and penal interest of Shs.12,196,879,941 plus costs. NSSF appealed to the High Court Commercial Division (Civil Appeal No. 29 of 2020), where Wamala J set aside the Tribunal's decision. URA filed a Notice of Appeal on 6 November 2020, sought a stay in the High Court and applied for leave to appeal. The High Court initially stayed execution but subsequently denied leave to appeal, causing the stay application to fall away. URA then sought a stay in the Court of Appeal pending disposal of its application for leave to appeal and the intended appeal. NSSF, holding a judgment in its favour, demanded a refund of UGX 25,321,214,423 and opposed the application.

Issues

1. Whether a single Justice of the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to hear a substantive application for stay of execution given the apparent conflict between Rule 53(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules and Section 12 of the Judicature Act.
2. Whether the applicant established a prima facie case of its right of appeal or a likelihood of success.
3. Whether the applicant would suffer irreparable damage or the appeal would be rendered nugatory if a stay was not granted.
4. Where the balance of convenience lay.

Orders

• The application is dismissed.
• The interim order entered by consent on 7 March 2023 in Misc. Application No. 44 of 2023 is vacated.
• The costs of this application shall abide the outcome of the appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (13)

• Constitution of the Republic of Uganda Article 126(2)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions Rule 2(2)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions Rule 6(2)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions Rule 40(2)(b)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions Rule 42(1)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions Rule 53
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions Rule 76
• Judicature Act Cap 13 s.12
• Judicature Act Cap 13 s.41(1)
• Judicature Act Cap 13 s.48
• Interpretation Act Cap 3 s.18(a)
• Income Tax Act s.25
• Income Tax Act s.2(ss)

Cases cited (7)

• Gashumba Maniraguha v Sam Nkundiye (Civil Application No. 24 of 2015)
• Sekikubo v Attorney General (Constitutional Application No. 6 of 2013)
• Lawrence Musitwa Kyazze v Eunice Busingye (Civil Application No. 18 of 1990)
• Kyambogo University v Prof Isaiah Omolo Ndiege (Civil Application No. 341 of 2013)
• Dr Ahmed Muhammad Kisuule v Greenland Bank (Civil Application No. 10 of 2010)
• Uganda Revenue Authority Vs Golden Leaves Hotels & Resorts Ltd & Apollo Hotel Corporation Ltd MA No. 0745 of 2007
• Osman Kassim v Century Bottling Company Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 34 of 2019)

Cases citing this judgment (9)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

• Stanbic Bank Uganda Limited v Vegol Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 52 of 2026)
• Nile Breweries Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (Miscellaneous Application No. 2780 of 2025)
• Finance Access Commerce and Trade Services (U) Limited v Aster Pharma Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 1929 of 2024)
• Transafrica Assurance Company Limited v Tembo Steels Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 1099 of 2024)
• Simba Properties Investment Ltd and Another v Vantage Mezzanine Fund II Partnership and Another (Civil Application No. 1299 of 2023)
• Simba Properties Investment Ltd and Another v Vantage Mezzanine Fund II Partnership and Another [2025] UGCA 266
• Kabagambe Nicholas v Mutabazi Francis (Miscellaneous Application No. 2280 of 2024)
• Onwuvuche Nnamdi and Another v Nankoomi and 3 Others (Civil Application 277 of 2023)
• Yahaya and 2 Others v Nabunya and 3 Others (Civil Application 89 of 2023)

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