The High Court Commercial Division has dealt a major blow to Nile Breweries Limited after dismissing the company’s attempt to stop the Uganda Revenue Authority (URA) from collecting Shs18.5 billion in disputed taxes. In a ruling delivered on May 25, 2026, Acting Judge Susan Odongo said the matter had already been decided by court and could not be reopened through another application.
The judge ruled that the brewer’s application was “res judicata,” a legal principle which prevents courts from hearing the same dispute more than once. According to Justice Odongo, Nile Breweries was trying to return to court with a different type of application while seeking the same outcome — stopping URA from enforcing tax collection.
“The Applicant’s current application is a textbook example of a suit that is res judicata,” Justice Odongo ruled. She added that the law does not allow parties to repeatedly bring back the same dispute before court.
The case originates from tax assessments issued by URA against Nile Breweries over beer exports to South Sudan and the Democratic Republic of Congo. The brewer had exported products through agents such as Ituri Investments Limited and Kabaco Uganda Limited. However, after carrying out a tax audit, URA concluded that the transactions were not genuine exports that qualify for zero-rated taxes. Instead, the authority treated them as ordinary local sales that should attract Value Added Tax (VAT) and Local Excise Duty.
URA consequently demanded Shs18.5 billion from Nile Breweries for the period between January and November 2022. The company objected to the assessments in March 2024, but URA maintained its position and upheld the tax demands through objection decisions issued later that year.
Nile Breweries then took the matter to the Tax Appeals Tribunal under Application No. 135 of 2024. While the tribunal dismissed some assessments on grounds that they were time-barred, it still upheld the brewer’s liability for VAT and excise duty amounting to Shs18.5 billion.
Unsatisfied with the tribunal’s decision, the company filed Civil Appeal No. 0140 of 2025 before the High Court and sought orders stopping URA from recovering the money before the appeal is determined.
In its arguments, Nile Breweries warned that immediate enforcement of the tax demand would severely affect its operations. The company’s Legal and Compliance Manager, Faith Mirembe, told court that URA intended to issue agency notices to the brewer’s banks to recover the money directly from its accounts.
According to the company, such enforcement would cripple daily business activities, including the purchase of raw materials and maintenance of production facilities. Nile Breweries further claimed that URA had already recovered more than Shs17 billion in February 2026, forcing the company to reduce production capacity and cut back on planned investments.
The brewer also argued that paying the money before the appeal is concluded would expose it to financial and reputational risks, including possible defaults with creditors and bankers. It further maintained that recovering money from government can be difficult even after winning a case because refunds from the Consolidated Fund are often delayed.
URA strongly opposed the application and accused Nile Breweries of misusing court procedures. The tax authority argued that the brewer had previously filed a similar application before Justice Susan Abinyo in 2025, which had already been dismissed with costs.
URA’s legal manager, Stuart Aheebwa, told court that the new application was simply another attempt to frustrate lawful tax collection. The authority insisted that taxes are critical for government operations and should not be delayed through repeated court applications.
Justice Odongo agreed with URA and said the issues raised in the latest application had already been substantially addressed in the earlier case. She noted that Nile Breweries had previously sought both a stay of execution and a temporary injunction against URA, but later abandoned the injunction request during proceedings before Justice Abinyo.
The judge explained that under Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act, any relief sought but not granted by court is legally treated as having been refused. This meant Nile Breweries could not come back with another application seeking essentially the same protection.
She further warned that allowing such repeated applications would create dangerous precedent and could paralyze the work of tax authorities.
“A taxpayer could, in theory, file a stay of execution, then a temporary injunction, then an interim stay, and then a constitutional stay, all targeting the same assessment,” Justice Odongo observed. She said such actions would make it impossible for URA to perform its public duty of collecting taxes.
The judge emphasized that courts must protect the principle of finality in litigation, describing it as an important pillar of justice and rule of law.
The ruling is being viewed as a major victory for URA in one of Uganda’s biggest recent tax disputes involving a multinational manufacturer. It also sends a strong message that courts may not tolerate repeated attempts to block tax enforcement through multiple applications based on the same dispute.
