Court Clears URA to Enforce UGX 18.5 Billion Tax Against Nile Breweries

The Commercial Division of the High Court has dismissed with costs an application by Nile Breweries Uganda Limited seeking to block the Uganda Revenue Authority (URA) from collecting 18.5 billion Shillings in disputed taxes. 

The dispute stems from a 2023 tax reassessment by URA, which found that Nile Breweries owed 18.509 billion Shillings in Value Added Tax (VAT) and Local Excise Duty for the period between January and November 2022. 

Nile Breweries, a manufacturer of alcoholic beverages that exports products to South Sudan and the Democratic Republic of Congo, argued that the disputed goods were meant for export and were therefore exempt from taxes under Uganda’s zero-rated export regime. However, URA’s assessment found that the products in question had not in fact been manufactured for export and were therefore subject to taxation. 

The tax body consequently assessed the company and demanded payment of more than 18.5 billion shillings. Nile Breweries challenged the assessment, maintaining that it exported the products through agents, including Ituri Investments Limited and Kabaco Uganda Limited, and therefore should not be taxed. 

The company took the matter to the Tax Appeals Tribunal. The Tax Appeals Tribunal, however, ruled in favour of URA and ordered Nile Breweries to pay the taxes. Dissatisfied with the decision, Nile Breweries appealed to the High Court. 

Before the appeal could be heard, the company filed an application in March 2026 seeking interim protection to stop URA from enforcing the tax demand pending determination of the appeal. That application was dismissed by Justice Abinyo on March 9, 2026. 

Nile Breweries then filed another application seeking to stay execution of the Tax Appeals Tribunal’s order, again asking court to restrain URA from collecting the taxes. In her ruling, Justice Odongo held that Nile Breweries was attempting to relitigate an issue that had already been conclusively determined by a court of competent jurisdiction and that allowing the new application to proceed would amount to revisiting issues that had already been decided.

She said the earlier application had been heard and determined by a competent court, which had the power to grant both a stay of execution and a temporary injunction. The dismissal of that application, she noted, constituted a final and binding decision on Nile Breweries’ request for interim protection against URA’s enforcement actions. 

Justice Odongo further held that although Nile Breweries argued that there was a distinction between a stay of execution and a temporary injunction, the substance of the issue remained the same, whether URA should be stopped from collecting the 18.5 billion shillings. 

She found that this issue had already been directly and substantially addressed in the earlier proceedings before Justice Abinyo and ruled that Nile Breweries could not seek the same relief through a fresh application. 

The judge dismissed the application with costs, clearing the way for URA to proceed with enforcement of the tax demand as Nile Breweries’ substantive appeal remains pending.