The Uganda Revenue Authority (URA) has secured a significant victory after the High Court ruled that taxpayers blaming their lawyers for missing statutory deadlines must produce credible evidence to support the allegations.
In a judgment delivered on October 14, 2026, Justice Susan Odongo dismissed an appeal by Cheffette Catering Limited, ruling that the company had failed to prove that its former lawyers were responsible for its 11-month delay in seeking a review of a URA taxation decision.
The court held that although a litigant may rely on an advocate who has been properly instructed, that protection cannot automatically excuse failure to comply with statutory timelines.
The catering company had told the court that it instructed M/s Ntambirweki Kandeebe & Co. Advocates on March 21, 2024, to challenge URA’s objection decision before the Tax Appeals Tribunal.
The company claimed that its lawyers assured it that the matter was progressing, only for it to discover in January 2025 that no application had been filed.
It subsequently hired new lawyers and applied for an extension of time in February 2025, blaming the earlier failure on its former legal representatives.
However, Justice Odongo found that the company’s claims were not supported by the necessary evidence.
The judgment noted that Cheffette had not presented a written instruction letter, retainer agreement, fee note, formal correspondence proving the instructions, or an affidavit from the former lawyers admitting the alleged error.
The company had also not produced evidence of a formal complaint against the lawyers for professional misconduct.
The judge emphasized that allegations of negligence cannot be established merely through assertions made by a client’s employee who lacks direct personal knowledge of the former lawyers’ actions.
The ruling establishes an important evidentiary principle for tax litigation, that a taxpayer seeking an extension because of an advocate’s alleged mistake must demonstrate that the advocate was actually instructed and that the alleged error caused the failure to file in time.
Although the court agreed that a client is not legally required to independently monitor court registry filings when represented by an advocate, it held that Cheffette had failed to establish the factual basis necessary to benefit from that principle.
The dispute arose from URA assessments of Shs314.2 million in Income Tax and Shs98 million in VAT over alleged undeclared sales.
After the Tax Appeals Tribunal rejected the company’s application for additional time, Cheffette appealed to the High Court, arguing that the Tribunal had wrongly assessed the evidence and placed an unfair burden on the taxpayer.
Justice Odongo rejected the appeal, affirmed the Tribunal’s decision and ordered Cheffette to meet URA’s costs.
