Our contribution to the Uganda chapter to the inaugural Legal 500 Transfer Pricing Comparative Guide, providing practical insights into Uganda’s transfer pricing regime, key compliance requirements, and emerging developments. The guide showcases the firm’s expertise in tax advisory and dispute resolution, offering valuable guidance to businesses navigating transfer pricing matters in Uganda.
The Industrial Court of Uganda has held that an employee who secretly holds two full-time jobs breaches the duty of fidelity and may be summarily dismissed, even where the restraint-of-trade doctrine would not itself apply during employment. MMAKS successfully represented Cavendish University Uganda (“CUU”) in the matter in which the Claimant’s suit for unlawful termination was dismissed in its entirety.
What Happened
In a Judgment delivered on 26th May 2026 in favour of our client, Kampala Hospital, the High Court of Uganda (Civil Division) dismissed a medical negligence claim arising from conflicting Hepatitis B test results issued to an expectant mother, holding that a hospital which conducts tests using National Drug Authority (NDA) approved rapid test kits and follows accepted medical practice cannot be held liable in negligence merely because the screening results were later contradicted by confirmatory testing.
The Protection of Sovereignty Bill, 2026 (Bill No. 13 of 2026) (the “Bill”) was gazetted on 13th April 2026 and first tabled in Parliament on 15th April 2026.
On 21 May 2026, the Uganda Revenue Authority (URA) issued a Public Notice on the rolling out of the new tax identifier reforms. The current Tax Identification Number (TIN) system is set to be replaced by the National Identification Number (NIN) for individuals, and the Business Registration Number (BRN) for non-individuals. In the Public Notice, both individuals and non – individuals are required to update their tax registration details to reflect their NIN, BRN, or foreign TIN, as applicable.
The Employment (Amendment) Act, 2025 - What Every Employer Needs to Know
In a recent judgment[1] obtained in favour of MMAKS Advocates’ client, Mehta Electricals, the Uganda Commercial Court declined to refer to arbitration a USD 600,000 component of a larger dispute over payments for electrical works because the Defendant, who sought the referral to arbitration, had no credible or plausible basis for contesting the validity and enforceability of the underlying issued interim payment certificates, leading to a conclusion that there was no (genuine) dispute to refer to arb
The Protection of Sovereignty Bill, 2026 (Bill No. 13 of 2026) (the “Bill”) was gazetted on 13th April 2026 and tabled in Parliament for the first time on 15th April 2026. It has been referred to the Parliamentary Committee on Defence and Internal Affairs and the Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee for scrutiny before it proceeds to Second Reading.
When a temporary injunction is issued against your client, the instinct is to either appeal or apply for review. But there is a third route which is underutilised, procedurally uncomplicated, and hiding in plain sight. Order 41 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules (“the CPR”) empowers any dissatisfied party to apply to the same court that granted the injunction to have it discharged, varied or set aside. No appeal, no review, no higher court. Just a return to the court that issued the order, armed with sufficient cause.
In a judicial review application brought on behalf of a MMAKS Advocates client, BMS General Trading, against the Financial Intelligence Authority (“FIA”) (Uganda’s Financial Intelligence Unit) and the Attorney General, the High Court of Uganda (Civil Division, Teko J.) has clarified the due process limits to the FIA’s power to issue directives for the freezing of bank accounts based on Uganda’s Anti Money Laundering statute.
