The Tax Appeals Tribunal has reopened a tax dispute involving more than Shs13.16b, giving businessman James Mansa a fresh opportunity to challenge an assessment by Uganda Revenue Authority (URA) after finding that his lawyer’s absence from a scheduled hearing was caused by unavoidable professional commitments while representing the Electoral Commission in the 2026 Presidential Election Petition before the Supreme Court. The decision sets aside an earlier order that had dismissed the appeal and effectively restores the dispute for hearing on its merits. The dispute stems from a tax assessment issued by URA against Mansa amounting to Shs13.16b.
His appeal challenging the assessment had been dismissed in January after his lead counsel failed to attend the hearing.
URA had argued that the assessed liability had immediately become due and payable, clearing the way for enforcement and recovery measures. Mansa subsequently returned to the Tribunal seeking reinstatement of the appeal under Section 26(4) of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act, which allows the Tribunal to revive an application dismissed for non-attendance where it considers it appropriate to do so.
Document before the Tribunal indicates that in his application, Mansa had argued that the absence of lead counsel was not intentional, noting that lawyer had, on January 19, 2026, received instructions to represent the Electoral Commission in Presidential Election Petition No. 1 of 2026. The petition, he noted, required urgent consultations with the Electoral Commission, the Attorney General and other stakeholders, preparation of affidavits, compilation of evidence and filing of responses within strict constitutional timelines. The Tribunal heard that because of those obligations, counsel was unable to personally attend the hearing scheduled for January 22.
Court records show that the lawyer’s chambers had, on January 20, 2026, attempted to keep the Tribunal informed of the scheduling conflict by sending another advocate from the same chambers to explain why lead counsel could not attend. The following day, the firm formally wrote to the Tribunal requesting an adjournment. Despite those efforts, the request was rejected and the appeal was dismissed when lead counsel failed to appear on the hearing date. However, in seeking reinstatement, Mansa argued that the failure to attend resulted entirely from exceptional circumstances beyond counsel’s control and should not deprive him of the opportunity to contest a tax assessment.
He maintained that there had never been any intention to abandon or delay the proceedings and that he had consistently demonstrated willingness to prosecute the appeal. URA opposed the application, arguing that the explanation had already been presented when the adjournment request was made and rejected, arguing that the taxpayer should have made alternative arrangements to ensure legal representation and that reopening the matter would undermine the Tribunal’s earlier decision refusing the adjournment.
However, the three-member Tribunal comprising Chairperson Crystal Kabajwara and members Stella Nyapendi Chombo and Proscovia Rebecca Nambi noted that the material placed before it was more detailed than what had been available when the request for adjournment was initially considered. The Tribunal observed that a supplementary affidavit explained, in considerable detail, the extent of counsel’s involvement in the election petition, noting that it had found that this additional material demonstrated the exceptional nature of the scheduling conflict.
Its also examined the taxpayer’s conduct before the appeal was dismissed and found no evidence that Mansa had ignored the proceedings or deliberately sought to delay the case. Instead, it observed that another advocate from counsel’s chambers had appeared before the Tribunal ahead of the hearing to explain the circumstances, while a formal application for adjournment had also been filed. Although those steps did not justify postponing the hearing at the time, they demonstrated that the taxpayer had not abandoned his appeal.
Equally significant was the Tribunal’s finding that January 22, 2026 marked the first occasion on which counsel had failed to attend proceedings, which supported the conclusion that the absence arose from exceptional circumstances. The panel observed that while law firms have a duty to organise their work efficiently, unavoidable scheduling conflicts in matters governed by rigid constitutional timelines should not automatically extinguish a party’s right to be heard. Thus, according to the Tribunal, those considerations favoured reinstating Mansa’s appeal noting that the broader interests of justice required the dispute to be determined on its merits rather than through a procedural default.
The Tribunal also noted that any inconvenience occasioned by the delay could adequately be addressed through an award of costs rather than permanently shutting out the taxpayer. Thus, it consequently set aside the dismissal order, reinstated the appeal and directed that the dispute proceed to a substantive hearing. The decision means URA’s disputed Shs13.16b assessment against James Mansa will now face a full hearing before the Tax Appeals Tribunal, where both the taxpayer and the revenue authority will have the opportunity to argue the merits of the assessment.