Sandra Ainebyoona.
Kampala, Uganda – The High Court in Kampala has rendered its verdict on the case brought forth by YO! Uganda Limited, a leading Financial Technology company, regarding a temporary injunction against the Uganda Revenue Authority (URA). The case, which pivoted on the balance between privacy rights and tax enforcement, has been resolved with the court ruling against the injunction.
The matter arose when YO! Uganda Limited, operating as a licensed Payment System Operator, requested a temporary injunction to prevent URA from accessing and disclosing sensitive information that had been seized from their premises. The information in question encompassed a wide array of financial records, including sales, purchases, and cash transactions. The company, along with David Ssonko and its Managing Director Gerald Begumisa, argued that URA’s actions infringed upon their constitutional rights to liberty and personal data.
The URA’s pursuit of the information escalated after an initial response from YO! Uganda Limited failed to meet their expectations. The tax authority demanded access to electronic devices, including personal mobile phones, and issued a warning of potential business closure. URA defended its actions, citing information provided by the Financial Intelligence Authority and asserting that the investigation aimed to uncover potential instances of tax evasion and money laundering within the FINTECH sector. The URA emphasized that their focus was on financial transactions rather than customer balances, highlighting the necessity of regulatory oversight.
In his ruling, Civil Division Judge Musa Ssekaana asserted that granting the requested injunction would undermine the rule of law and potentially facilitate tax evasion. Judge Ssekaana underscored that YO! Uganda Limited’s concerns were speculative and lacked concrete evidence of a violation of constitutional rights. He emphasized that the court could not be employed as a means to enable breaches of the law, as this would establish a precedent for evading tax obligations.
The judge further highlighted the significance of striking a balance between upholding constitutional rights and ensuring effective tax enforcement. The ruling, grounded in the principle of maintaining a just and equitable society, emphasizes the importance of preventing potential tax evaders from exploiting constitutional rights as a shield.
This ruling highlights the ongoing struggle between privacy rights and the imperative of tax regulation in the evolving landscape of financial technology. The decision sets a precedent that underscores the necessity of adhering to regulatory procedures while safeguarding constitutional rights within the FINTECH sector.
