The High Court has reinforced the importance of timely tax dispute resolution, ruling that taxpayers cannot secure extensions of time merely by claiming that their cases have strong prospects of success when they have failed to explain prolonged delays.
The ruling, which favours the Uganda Revenue Authority (URA), followed the dismissal of an appeal by Cheffette Catering Limited, which had sought more time to challenge additional tax assessments arising from alleged undeclared sales.
Justice Susan Odongo, delivering judgment on October 14, 2026, held that an applicant seeking an extension of time must first establish a credible and legally acceptable reason for failing to comply with the prescribed deadline.
The judge emphasized that the law’s four considerations in applications for extensions of time, including the length of delay, reasons for the delay, chances of success and prejudice to the opposing party, must be applied in a manner that gives primary importance to explaining the delay.
The court rejected Cheffette’s argument that the Tax Appeals Tribunal had concentrated excessively on the 11-month delay while failing to give adequate consideration to the merits of the intended tax challenge.
Justice Odongo held that where the delay remains unexplained and the applicant fails to establish reasonable cause, the possibility that the underlying dispute could succeed does not automatically justify an extension.
Allowing taxpayers to bypass statutory deadlines without a credible explanation, the judgment reasoned, would undermine the legal framework governing tax disputes and leave revenue administration exposed to indefinite uncertainty.
The court noted that statutory deadlines are designed to promote finality, predictability and certainty in the administration and collection of public revenue.
Cheffette’s dispute followed a URA audit covering several financial years, after which the authority assessed the company for Income Tax of Shs314,165,238 and Value Added Tax (VAT) of Shs97,959,102 over alleged undeclared sales.
The company challenged the assessments, but URA upheld the liabilities in an objection decision served on March 21, 2024.
Cheffette claimed that it instructed its former lawyers to appeal to the Tax Appeals Tribunal but later discovered that no application had been filed. It subsequently sought an extension of time, citing the alleged failure of its former legal representatives.
The Tribunal dismissed the application in April 2025, finding that the company had failed to provide sufficient evidence of the lawyers’ alleged mistake or demonstrate that it had acted diligently.
The High Court upheld the outcome, finding that the company’s failure to substantiate its explanation left the delay unexcused.
Although the court acknowledged that the Tribunal had incorrectly suggested that a represented client must independently monitor registry filings, it held that this error did not invalidate the Tribunal’s ultimate decision because Cheffette had failed to prove the alleged mistake by its former lawyers.
The appeal was dismissed in its entirety, the Tribunal’s ruling was affirmed, and Cheffette was ordered to pay URA’s costs.
The decision strengthens the principle that statutory tax dispute procedures must be respected and that extensions of time remain exceptional relief, not an automatic entitlement for taxpayers who miss the prescribed deadlines.
