Civil Appeal No. 620 of 2023
Kilombero Sugar Company Limited appealed to the Court of Appeal of Tanzania against a decision of the Tax Revenue Appeals Tribunal dated 30 April 2014 in Tax Appeal No. 32 of 2013. The Tribunal panel that heard the matter comprised the Vice-Chairman and two members. In the record of appeal, the certified copy of the Tribunal's decision bore the typed abbreviation "Sgn" after the names of each of the three members, rather than their actual signatures. Additionally, the decree included in the record of appeal was signed only by the Vice-Chairman, and not by the two other members who had participated in the decision. The respondent, the Commissioner General of the Tanzania Revenue Authority, raised a preliminary objection under Rule 21 of the Tax Revenue Appeals Tribunal Rules, 2001, contending that these defects rendered the appeal incompetent.
(1) Whether the typed word "Sgn" appearing after each member's name on the copy of the Tribunal's decision satisfies the requirement under Rule 21 of the Tax Revenue Appeals Tribunal Rules that the decision be signed by the members who heard the appeal. (2) Whether a decree is an essential document that must be included in the record of appeal from the Tribunal, and if so, whether a decree signed by only one member (the Vice-Chairman) rather than all members who heard the appeal is valid. (3) Whether the affixing of the Tribunal's seal under section 32(2) and (3) of the Tax Revenue Appeals Tribunal Act can cure or validate an otherwise defective decree.
For the respondent, Mr. Beleko argued that the typed word "Sgn" does not constitute an actual signature and therefore the decision was not properly signed as required by Rule 21. He further argued that a valid decree of the Tribunal must bear the signatures of all members who heard the appeal, and since the decree in the record only bore the Vice-Chairman's signature, it was invalid; as the record of appeal must contain a valid decree, its absence rendered the appeal incompetent. He relied on several unreported Court of Appeal decisions (Mbeya Intertrade, CIB Tanzania, Amiran Port Operations) in support.
For the appellant, Mr. Mtafya argued that the "Sgn" notation, taken together with the certification stamp on the copy (which itself bore the Vice-Chairman's and members' signatures), satisfied the signing requirement under Rule 21. On the decree issue, he contended that under section 25(1) of the Tax Revenue Appeals Tribunal Act and Rule 24(1), an appeal to the Court of Appeal lies against a "decision" of the Tribunal, not a decree, so Rule 21 (properly construed) does not extend to decrees, and prior cases importing decree-signature requirements from the Appellate Jurisdiction Act and Court of Appeal Rules had misconstrued the law. He also argued that the decree issued under Rule 23(2) was intended only for execution purposes, not for appeals, and that in any event section 32(2) and (3) of the Act validated the decree because it bore the Tribunal's official seal, which authenticated it as a proper instrument notwithstanding the missing signatures.
The Court of Appeal upheld the preliminary objection and struck out the appeal with costs. It held, first, that the typed word "Sgn" cannot constitute a signature within the meaning of Rule 21, since a signature must be a name, mark or writing used with intent to authenticate a document and identify its author; a mere typed abbreviation does not achieve this. Second, the Court held that a decree is an essential document that must be included in the record of appeal from the Tribunal, rejecting the argument that only a "decision" need be appealed against; drawing on the Civil Procedure Code definitions of "decree" and "judgment", and prior Court of Appeal authority (Registered Trustees of the Mariam Faith Healing Centre; Zepharia Letashu), the Court reasoned that a decree is the formal, conclusive adjudication that follows the judgment/decision and is central to any appeal; without a valid decree there can be neither appeal nor execution. Third, the Court rejected the contention that Rule 23(2) decrees are issued solely for execution purposes, finding nothing in that Rule limiting the end use of a decree. Fourth, the Court held that section 32(2) and (3) of the Act, dealing with authentication by the Tribunal's seal, cannot cure a decree that is substantively defective for lack of signatures of all members who heard the appeal; validity cannot be conferred on an instrument that was already patently invalid in law. Consequently, since the decree was signed only by the Vice-Chairman and not by all the members who heard the appeal, it was defective, rendering the appeal incompetent and warranting it being struck out with costs.
The ruling reinforces strict procedural compliance requirements for appeals from the Tax Revenue Appeals Tribunal to the Court of Appeal of Tanzania, confirming that both the decision and the decree of the Tribunal must be properly signed by all members who heard the matter, and that a decree is an indispensable document in the record of appeal, not merely an execution instrument. The judgment clarifies that typed notations such as "Sgn" do not satisfy signature requirements under Rule 21, and that defects in signing cannot be cured by affixation of the Tribunal's official seal under section 32(2) and (3) of the Act. By following and affirming earlier unreported Court of Appeal decisions (including Mbeya Intertrade Company Ltd and Midcom Tanzania Limited), the judgment consolidates a consistent line of authority treating signature and decree defects as fatal to the competency of an appeal, underscoring the practical necessity for practitioners to ensure procedural documents from the Tribunal are fully and properly executed before lodging an appeal.
Speak directly with our advocates. We turn precedent into actionable advice for your matter.