THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA

(CIVIL DIVISION)

MISCELLANEOUS CAUSE NO. 664 OF 2023

GAMBA NOGU MK ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: APPLICANT

VERSUS

UGANDA REVENUE AUTHORITY :::::::::::::::::::::::::: RESPONDENT

Brief facts

Mr. Gamba Nogu MK, a prominent Kampala businessman, received a UGX 500,000,000/=
tax assessment from Uganda Revenue Authority (URA) in January 2023, which he contested
with the help of his lawyer, Ms. Misango, citing errors and double taxation. Despite
requesting a revision and a meeting to present his case, URA dismissed his claims in
February 2023, branding him a tax evader. Subsequently, Mr. Gamba Nogu was arrested at
the Nyege Nyege Festival in March 2023 and released on bail in May 2023. Dissatisfied with
URA's decision, he instructed Ms. Misango to file a suit in the Civil Division of the High
Court of Uganda at Kampala, seeking a review of URA's decision, alleging bias, and
claiming unfair treatment. URA's response challenged the High Court's jurisdiction to hear
the case as a court of first instance.

Legal Issues

1. Whether Mr. Gamba Nogu’s suit raises any issues for judicial review?

2. Whether the Court has jurisdiction to entertain Mr. Gamba Nogu’s suit?

3. What are remedies available to the parties?

As the respondent in this matter, we would present the following defences:

Issue one. Whether Mr. Gamba Nogu’s suit raises any issues for judicial review?

The first question court ought to determine is whether costs can be varied. We would like to
show this court that Mr. Gamba Nogu's suit fails to raise any valid grounds for judicial
review. The decision by URA regarding the tax assessment was made within its statutory
authority and based on its interpretation of tax laws. There is no evidence of procedural
impropriety, illegality, irrationality, or unreasonableness in URA's decision making process.
Therefore, there is no basis for the High Court to review or quash URA's decision.

When dealing with matters concerning with that are administrative in nature, the principle of
natural justice, specifically audi alteram partem (right to be heard), is indeed fundamental in
both judicial and administrative tribunals, as established in Munira vs NIC 1985. However,
in the case at hand, URA contends that Mr. Gamba Nogu was given an opportunity to present
his position regarding the tax assessment. URA wrote to Mr. Gamba Nogu's lawyer on
February 28th, 2023, responding to the complaint and stating its position. Although the
response may have been unfavorable to Mr. Gamba Nogu, it still fulfilled the requirement of
providing an opportunity to be heard, and hence offering the right to fair hearing. Fair hearing
is a fundamental right provided for under Article 42 of the 1995 Constitution as amended
which states that “ Any person appearing before any administrative official or body has a
right to be treated justly and fairly and shall have a right to apply to a court of law in respect
of any administrative decision taken against him or her.”

Additionally, URA's response to Mr. Gamba Nogu's complaint was based on the information
available and within its mandate to enforce tax laws. There is no evidence to support Mr.
Gamba Nogu's claim of bias or unfair treatment by URA. URA's decision-making process
was conducted in accordance with procedural fairness principles, and Mr. Gamba Nogu was
given the opportunity to present his position. Although the decision was unfair, we should not
refute the fact that URA fairly issued a notice to Mr. Gamba Nogu thus showing that they had
actually followed the procedural processes.

As was the case in Hassan Bukenya Wasswa v Dr. Richard Sembatya, the trail Judge
stated that;
“The established position of judicial practice is that, save in exceptional cases, a
Judge will not alter a fee allowed by the taxing officer, merely because in his opinion
he should 190 have allowed a higher or lower amount- per Mulenga JSC, as he then
was, in Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espanol Supreme Court Civil Application No.
23 of 1999. He further stated that, an exceptional case is where it is shown expressly
or by inference that in assessing and arriving at the quantum of the fee allowed, the
taxing officer exercised or applied a wrong principle.”
Which in this case no principle was broken as per the above argument.

Issue 2. Whether the Court has jurisdiction to entertain Mr. Gamba Nogu’s suit?

The High Court, Civil Division does not have jurisdiction to entertain Mr. Gamba Nogu's suit
as a court of first instance. According to the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act, the Tax Appeals
Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine disputes arising from tax
assessments made by URA. Section 14 (1) of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act empowers the
Tax Appeals Tribunal to review taxation decisions. Taxation decision is defined in Section 1
(k) of the Act to mean: “any assessment, determination, decision or notice.” Therefore, any
challenge to URA's decision should be brought before the Tax Appeals Tribunal, not the
High Court.

The defense argues that the matter raised by Mr. Gamba Nogu is primarily a tax dispute, not
an ordinary tort, as categorized by the Court of Appeal in Uganda Revenue Authority v
Rabbo Enterprises (U) Ltd & Anor when the seizure of goods and vehicles by URA was
based on tax assessments and decisions regarding duty payments. Therefore, it falls within
the jurisdiction of the Tax Appeals Tribunal, as provided for by Article 152(3) of the
Constitution. The High Court's jurisdiction is not unlimited in this regard, and its jurisdiction
is subject to other provisions of the Constitution, including Article 152(3).

The principle in administrative law is the openness for courts of first instance to determine
the grievances of the parties before forwarding them to the high court for review. We
therefore should look at and rely on the interpretation of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act and its
relationship with the Constitution. The Act establishes the Tax Appeals Tribunal, which has
the authority to review taxation decisions, as outlined in Section 14. This Act, enacted
pursuant to Article 152(3) of the Constitution, grants the Tax Appeals Tribunal jurisdiction
over tax matters. Therefore, the High Court's jurisdiction is not absolute in tax disputes, and
parties must first exhaust the remedies available through the Tax Appeals Tribunal before
seeking recourse in the High Court.

Issue 3. What are remedies available to the parties?

As was stated in the case Yosero Mugenyi v Hoima District Administration Taxation
Appeal No. 25 of 2017, when the trial judge mentioned that , it is within the discretion of the
Taxing Officer to increase or
reduce the instruction fees and the amount of the increase or reduction is
discretionary;
he further added that the question that should be constantly asked in appeals or references
from
taxation decisions is whether the taxing master in exercising his discretion
did so judiciously or that the Taxing Master properly directed himself/herself
on the law.
Counsel contended that this was a complex matter because it was novel in

Sighting the case of FENDER V. ST JOHN MILDMAY [1938] AC 38 in which Lord

Wright, found that
“In one sense every rule of law, either common law or equity, which has been laid
down by the courts, in that course of judicial legislation which has evolved the
law of this country, has been based on considerations of public policy.”

This therefore implies that all law is made in regard or with the interest of public policy. In
that URA’s assessment is a mandate granted by law and also the creation of the tax tribunal
are put there so that experts in tax can make informed judgements in cases that concern tax
grievances. Mr. Gamba Nogu's suit lacks merit, and the High Court, Civil Division does not
have jurisdiction to entertain it. The appropriate forum for resolving disputes related to tax
assessments is the Tax Appeals Tribunal. Therefore, I respectfully request the court to
dismiss Mr. Gamba Nogu's suit.

Conclusion:

We assert that URA's actions were lawful and within its jurisdiction as a tax authority. The
Tax Appeals Tribunal Act provides the appropriate forum for resolving tax disputes, and Mr.
Gamba Nogu should have pursued remedies through that tribunal before resorting to
litigation in the High Court. Therefore, the High Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain Mr.
Gamba Nogu's suit, and it should be dismissed accordingly.