The High Court has dismissed an application by Real Task Agencies Limited, a company dealing in machinery and equipment, which sought judicial review against the Uganda Revenue Authority (URA), its Commissioner General, and Stanbic Bank Uganda over a tax dispute amounting to over UGX 1.1 billion.
In a ruling delivered by Hon. Justice Simon Peter M. Kinobe found that the application, which sought various orders including declarations, injunctions, and damages, was “not amenable for Judicial Review” and fell outside the court’s jurisdiction.
The case arose from an audit conducted by URA on November 28, 2020, which resulted in additional Income Tax and VAT assessments being issued to Real Task Agencies. The company objected to the assessments, claiming errors that warranted rectification under the Tax Procedure Code Act.
Dissatisfied with the objection process and outcome, the company appealed for Alternative Dispute Resolution, only for the application to be nullified by URA.
Real Task Agencies alleged that the audit and subsequent actions by URA were procedurally unfair and illegal. However, the respondents, URA and Stanbic Bank—argued otherwise. The tax authority maintained that the applicant failed to exhaust all available remedies, did not provide sufficient evidence, and that the matter was improperly before court.
Stanbic Bank, which had acted on a third-party agency notice from URA to remit UGX 1.1 billion, contended it had no obligation to notify Real Task Agencies, calling the case “misconceived” and “an abuse of court process.”
Justice Kinobe noted that while judicial review focuses on the process of decision-making rather than the merits of the decision itself, the applicant’s suit appeared to challenge the correctness of URA’s tax decision rather than its legality, rationality, or procedural fairness.
“The purpose of judicial review is to ensure that the individual is given fair treatment by the authority to which he or she has been subjected,” Justice Kinobe emphasized, citing precedent. “This application is intended to determine an individual right and is a form of ‘appeal’… as opposed to challenging the process.”
Citing the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act, the judge reaffirmed that tax disputes fall under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Tax Appeals Tribunal, not the High Court.
“If one is not agreeable with the decision of the 1st and 2nd respondents… the aggrieved party should follow the set procedures of appeal as established by law,” he added.
Ultimately, the court found no justification to invoke its inherent jurisdiction and dismissed the application with costs awarded to the respondents.
“This judgment reaffirms the importance of procedural propriety in seeking redress against government decisions,” commented Kwerit Sam, counsel for URA.
The ruling sends a clear message to litigants: tax-related grievances must first go through the proper tribunal channels before escalating to higher courts.
