Tax Tribunal Revives Shs13.2 Billion URA Tax Row for Businessman

The Tax Appeals Tribunal has granted businessman James Mansa a second chance to contest a Shs13.16 billion tax assessment from the Uganda Revenue Authority (URA). This decision overturns a previous dismissal of his appeal, which occurred because his lead counsel failed to appear for a scheduled hearing.

Mansa’s appeal was dismissed in January after his legal representative was unable to attend. The URA had argued that the assessed tax was immediately due and payable, permitting enforcement actions. Mansa subsequently petitioned the Tribunal to reinstate his case, citing Section 26(4) of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act, which allows for the revival of dismissed applications under specific circumstances.

According to documents presented, Mansa’s counsel was instructed on January 19, 2026, to represent the Electoral Commission in a critical Presidential Election Petition. This high-stakes case required urgent consultations and strict constitutional timelines, making it impossible for the lawyer to attend the tax hearing on January 22.

Efforts were made by the lawyer’s chambers to inform the Tribunal of the conflict, including sending another advocate to explain the situation and submitting a formal adjournment request. Despite these attempts, the request was denied, and the appeal was dismissed when the lead counsel did not appear.

Mansa contended that his counsel’s absence was due to exceptional circumstances beyond their control and should not preclude him from challenging the significant tax assessment. He asserted a consistent willingness to pursue the appeal, refuting any intent to delay proceedings.

The URA opposed the reinstatement, arguing that the explanation was previously provided and rejected, and that Mansa should have arranged alternative representation. However, the Tribunal, comprising Chairperson Crystal Kabajwara and members Stella Nyapendi Chombo and Proscovia Rebecca Nambi, found that the additional details provided in a supplementary affidavit offered a more comprehensive view of the unavoidable scheduling conflict.

The Tribunal found no evidence of Mansa deliberately delaying the case, noting that his team had attempted to communicate the issue and had appeared to explain the situation. The Tribunal also considered that this was the first instance of the counsel’s absence, supporting the claim of exceptional circumstances.

Ultimately, the Tribunal determined that the interests of justice favored hearing the dispute on its merits rather than allowing a procedural default to end the case. It concluded that any inconvenience caused by the delay could be addressed through costs. Consequently, the dismissal order was set aside, the appeal was reinstated, and the case will now proceed to a substantive hearing.

Source: https://www.monitor.co.ug/uganda/business/finance/tax-tribunal-reopens-shs13-2b-ura-dispute-5549972