Black Cob v Uganda Revenue Authority
Tax Appeals Tribunal, Application No. 112 of 2021. July to December 2025. Coram: Ms. Crystal Kabajwara; Mr. Siraj Ali; Mrs. Kabakumba Masiko.
Informer Rewards · The Doctrine of Estoppel · Special Damages
An informer reported a brewer's related-party dealings. The Revenue Authority later said the tip had not helped.
The situation
An informer gave the Revenue Authority information in June 2015 about transactions between two brewing companies, and was paid a reward of about UGX 1.17 billion. The authority later collected about UGX 44 billion from the two companies but said the audits came from a board directive, not the tip.
How it was resolved
The Tribunal found the authority's information request came a month after the tip, that its board minutes concerned a different issue, and that its own witness had said under oath he learned of the transactions from an informer. The informer was entitled to 10% of the UGX 52.7 billion principal recovered, and the authority was ordered to pay the balance of UGX 4,099,305,264. A claim for damages failed for want of proof.
What a practitioner takes from it
Informers should keep every message and date: the chronology won this case.
The rate at the time of the tip applied here; whether that holds is before the Court of Appeal (Case 014).