Criminal Appeal No. 211 of 2020
The appellant was a Tanzanian transport operator who temporarily imported a Scania motor vehicle and trailer through Kabanga customs border. In July 2015, TRA officers intercepted the vehicle and placed it in a customs warehouse, alleging that the temporary importation period had been exceeded. His attempts to obtain an extension and secure release of the vehicle were unsuccessful. He appealed to the Tax Revenue Appeals Board and subsequently to the Tax Revenue Appeals Tribunal, both of which upheld TRA's position.
He then lodged a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeal on 29 October 2018, but the actual appeal was not lodged until 12 October 2021.
The decisive issue was whether the appeal had been properly instituted within the statutory time prescribed by Rule 90(1) of the Tanzania Court of Appeal Rules, 2009, and whether the appellant could rely on a certificate of delay to exclude time from computation.
The Court held that the appeal was incompetent and time-barred.
Rule 90(1) required the memorandum and record of appeal to be lodged within 60 days from the filing of the notice of appeal. The appellant had received the relevant proceedings and judgment on 19 November 2018, meaning there was no basis for excluding the relevant period through a certificate of delay.
The Court further held that the appellant should instead have applied for extension of time. His earlier application for leave to amend the notice of appeal did not extend or suspend the statutory period for instituting the appeal.
Consequently, the Court struck out the appeal, with each party bearing its own costs.
The case is important principally for appellate procedure and limitation of time:
Strict compliance with Rule 90(1): A party cannot simply lodge a notice of appeal and assume that the substantive appeal can be filed years later.
Certificate of delay is not automatic: It only assists where the prescribed conditions for exclusion of time are satisfied.
Extension of time is the proper remedy: Where an appellant has missed the 60-day period, the appropriate course is to seek extension of time rather than proceed as though the appeal were still competent.
Procedural compliance is jurisdictionally significant: Even where an appellant may have substantive grounds against a tax decision, failure to properly institute the appeal can prevent the Court from examining those substantive grounds.
Court's duty to examine competence: The Court itself raised the question of competence suo motu before hearing the merits. This demonstrates that the competence of an appeal is a threshold matter which the Court can consider on its own initiative.
Speak directly with our advocates. We turn precedent into actionable advice for your matter.