Civil Reference No. 7 of 2004
The applicant, BG International Limited, was aggrieved by the decision of the Tax Revenue Appeals Tribunal in Tax Appeal No. 17 of 2015 (delivered 2 May 2017), which upheld the findings of the Tax Revenue Appeals Board in consolidated Tax Appeals No. 28 and 29 of 2014. On 11 May 2017 the applicant lodged a notice of appeal and, on the same date, wrote to the Registrar of the Tax Appeals Tribunal requesting proceedings, judgment and decree. On 5 July 2017, the applicant wrote to the Secretary of the Tax Revenue Appeals Board requesting exhibits tendered and admitted in evidence during the Board proceedings. On 31 August 2017, the applicant lodged Civil Appeal No. 191 of 2017 without including the exhibits or its earlier request letter for proceedings/judgment/decree. The applicant then applied under Rules 10 and 96(6) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2009 for extension of time to file a supplementary record of appeal incorporating the missing exhibits and the request letter, on the basis that the Tax Revenue Appeals Board had not supplied the exhibits despite request.
Whether the applicant had advanced sufficient cause to justify the Court granting an extension of time within which to lodge a supplementary record of appeal including the exhibits tendered and admitted in evidence at the Tax Revenue Appeals Board.
The applicant argued that the missing exhibits were crucial to the appeal, without which the appeal would be rendered incompetent (citing African Barrick Gold Mine Plc v Commissioner General (TRA)). It contended it had duly performed its duty by writing to the Board's Secretary requesting the exhibits, but the Board failed to supply them before the appeal was lodged, and thus, relying on Dowans Tanzania Limited and Another v TANESCO and Transcontinental Forwarders Limited v Tanganyika Motors Limited, it should not be blamed for the Board's delay and was effectively "home and dry" once the request was made. It further argued that exhibits were not required documents for lodging an appeal to the Tribunal under the Tax Revenue Appeals Act, so there was no obligation to request them earlier. The respondent countered that the applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient cause, having lodged the appeal without first securing necessary documents, which amounted to inaction/negligence rather than a failure attributable to the Board. The respondent emphasised that no certificate had been issued by the Registrar excluding time for preparation of documents, meaning the record of appeal lodged was incomplete due to the applicant's own default, and that in law there was no valid appeal capable of being supplemented. The respondent urged dismissal with costs.
The Court held that there was no merit in the application and dismissed it with costs. The Court found that under Rule 90(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2009, a request for certified copies of documents to be appended to the record of appeal must be made within thirty days of the decision sought to be appealed (here, the Tribunal's decision of 2 May 2017). The applicant's letter requesting the exhibits was written on 5 July 2017, approximately sixty-four days after the decision — far beyond the prescribed thirty-day period — rendering the request ineffectual absent leave of the Tribunal. Consequently, the applicant could not rely on the 'home and dry' principle from Transcontinental Forwarders/Dowans, as those cases involved timely requests, unlike the present case. The Court held that the applicant was legally obligated to first apply to the Tribunal for extension of time to request the exhibits before approaching the Court of Appeal, and having failed to do so, could not now claim sufficient cause for the extension sought.
The ruling reinforces the strict application of Rule 90(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2009, requiring that requests for documents to be included in a record of appeal be made within thirty days of the impugned decision, failing which any remedy lies in first seeking an extension of time from the tribunal or court below rather than from the appellate court directly. It clarifies that reliance on precedents excusing delay caused by lower tribunals (such as Dowans and Transcontinental Forwarders) is only available where the initial request for documents was itself made within the prescribed time; a late request, even if unfulfilled by the lower body, does not entitle an applicant to invoke the 'home and dry' principle. The case, citing Geita Gold Mine Limited v Commissioner General TRA, affirms that failure to comply with the thirty-day requirement can only be remedied by a proper application for extension of time before the relevant tribunal, underscoring procedural diligence in tax appeal litigation.
Speak directly with our advocates. We turn precedent into actionable advice for your matter.