Civil Reference No. 7 of 2004
Following a tax audit, the respondent (Commissioner General, TRA) found that the applicant had underpaid various taxes. The applicant's objection was unsuccessful, and subsequent appeals to the Tax Revenue Appeals Board and the Tax Revenue Appeals Tribunal were both dismissed, the Tribunal's decision being delivered on 2/5/2017. Intending to appeal to the Court of Appeal, the applicant lodged a notice of appeal on 11/5/2017 and on the same day wrote to the Registrar of the Tribunal requesting proceedings, judgment and decree, which were supplied on 4/7/2017; a certificate of delay was obtained on 10/7/2017. Since the 60-day appeal period was to expire on 3/9/2017 and the applicant had not yet obtained certain exhibits tendered before the Board, it lodged its appeal hoping to include the missing exhibits within the 14-day grace period under the Rules without needing leave. The documents were still not supplied after 14 days, prompting an application before a single Justice for extension of time to include the omitted documents in the record of appeal. The single Justice dismissed the application, holding that the applicant ought first to have sought extension of time from the Tribunal to request the omitted exhibits (the endorsed exhibits ought to have been requested within 30 days of the judgment under Rule 90(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules) before applying to the Court for extension of time to include them in the record of appeal. The applicant sought a reference to the full Court to reverse this ruling.
Whether the applicant made out a case warranting reversal of the single Justice's decision refusing extension of time to include omitted documents (endorsed exhibits) in the record of appeal; specifically, whether Rule 90(1) of the Tanzania Court of Appeal Rules, 2009 (imposing a 30-day limit to request proceedings/judgment/decree) applied to requests for exhibits from the Tax Revenue Appeals Board, and whether the applicant was obliged to first seek extension of time from the Tribunal before applying to the Court of Appeal for leave to include the omitted documents.
The applicant, through Mr. Kamugisha, argued that Rule 90(1) applies only to the High Court and Tribunal registrars, not to the Secretary of the Board, who is not a registrar and is not obliged to prepare the record of proceedings; hence no fixed time limit governed requests to the Board for exhibits, especially since the applicant had already obtained a certificate of delay and filed its appeal. The applicant contended it had acted diligently and that the single Justice misapplied Rule 90(1) and misunderstood the distinct roles of the Board's Secretary and the Tribunal's Registrar. Alternatively, counsel urged the Court to allow the applicant to invoke the newly amended Rule 96(7) (mandating leave to file omitted documents) at the hearing of the appeal. The respondent, through Ms. Achimpota, argued that the applicant failed to show good cause for the delay, having improperly sought the exhibits from the Board rather than reverting to the Tribunal, from which it had originally and correctly requested the proceedings, judgment and decree. She contended the applicant should have sought extension of time from the Tribunal to be furnished with the omitted documents before approaching the Court of Appeal, and that it was improper to now invoke Rule 96(7) since that amendment postdated the single Justice's decision and would circumvent the ruling refusing extension of time.
The Court of Appeal (Juma CJ, Mugasha JA, Levira JA) dismissed the reference with costs, holding that the applicant failed to demonstrate any misdirection, misapprehension of law or facts, or improper exercise of discretion by the single Justice warranting interference under the established principles governing references (citing Daudi Haga, Mary Ugomba, VIP Engineering, G.A.B. Swalle, and Mbogo and Another v Shah). The Court held that since the tax appeal to the Court of Appeal is governed by section 25(1) and (2) of the Tax Revenue Appeals Act, which applies the Appellate Jurisdiction Act and Rules mutatis mutandis, reliance on Rule 90(1) by the single Justice was justified. The Court found it was procedurally wrong for the applicant to seek the endorsed exhibits from the Board rather than from the Registrar of the Tribunal, since documentation concerning what transpired before the Board and Tribunal must be sourced from the Tribunal's Registrar on appeal to the Court. The applicant's letter to the Board was ineffectual, being made after expiry of the 30-day period, and it was improper to have obtained the certificate of delay before securing the requisite documents from the Tribunal. The Court also refused the applicant's alternative prayer to be granted leave to invoke Rule 96(7) at the hearing of the appeal, noting that this rule was not before the single Justice (having come into force via G.N. No. 344 of 2019, after the single Justice's ruling) and that granting such leave would amount to circumventing the decision refusing extension of time, which could not be condoned.
The ruling clarifies the procedural chain for obtaining and including documents in records of appeal from decisions of the Tax Revenue Appeals Tribunal to the Court of Appeal: an intending appellant must request proceedings, judgment, decree and any related exhibits from the Registrar of the Tribunal (not the Secretary of the Board) within the time prescribed by Rule 90(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules, as applied mutatis mutandis via section 25(2) of the Tax Revenue Appeals Act. It reaffirms the narrow scope of appellate review of a single Justice's exercise of discretion on a reference, confirming that such discretion will only be disturbed where there is demonstrable misdirection, misapprehension, or misapplication of law or facts. It also establishes that a party cannot invoke a subsequently enacted procedural rule (such as amended Rule 96(7)) to circumvent an earlier refusal of extension of time, particularly where that rule was not in force or argued before the original decision-maker.
Speak directly with our advocates. We turn precedent into actionable advice for your matter.