Civil Reference No. 7 of 2004
Geita Gold Mining Limited (the appellant), a gold mining company operating under a Mine Development Agreement (MDA) with the Government of Tanzania, imports fuels and lubricants for its mining operations. Under Article 6 of the MDA, both the company and its contractors are entitled to import items, including fuel, without restriction, subject to compliance with Tanzanian law. The appellant also held a Special Mining for Gold Licence, entitling it to remission of road tolls and fuel levy (GN No. 218 of 2009, as amended) and excise duty remission on fuel imported for mining activities (GN No. 268 of 2010, as amended), provided the fuel was not transferred, sold or disposed of to persons not entitled to similar privileges. The appellant used contractors to perform mining activities and supplied them with the tax-remitted fuel to carry out those activities on its behalf. The Tanzania Revenue Authority (TRA) demanded payment of TZS 2,039,696,116.00 in road toll and fuel levy for 2013-2015, contending that supplying fuel to contractors—who did not enjoy the same exemption—breached the conditions of remission. The appellant's appeals to the Tax Revenue Appeals Board and the Tax Revenue Appeals Tribunal were unsuccessful, both bodies finding that allowing contractors to use the tax-remitted fuel violated the remission conditions. The appellant brought a third appeal to the Court of Appeal.
(1) Whether, under GN No. 218 of 2009 and GN No. 268 of 2010 (as amended), the tax exemption on fuel required that the fuel be used solely by the mining company itself in its mining activities. (2) Whether the appellant's act of allowing its contractors—who did not enjoy similar tax privileges—to use the remitted fuel amounted to a prohibited 'transfer, sale or disposition' that terminated the exemption, even though there was no sale or change of ownership. (3) Whether the TRA's demand for payment of excise duty and fuel levy on fuel consumed by the appellant's contractors was lawful.
The appellant argued that under Article 6 of the MDA, both the mining company and its contractors were entitled to import fuel without restriction, and that the GNs should be interpreted purposively together with the MDA to include contractors as beneficiaries of the exemption. It contended that giving fuel to contractors for use solely in the appellant's mining activities did not constitute a 'transfer, sale or disposition' since there was no change of ownership and no payment received, and that a TRA officer stationed at the site was aware the fuel was used exclusively for mining purposes. The appellant invited the Court to depart from its prior decisions in Resolute Tanzania Limited v. Commissioner General and Geita Gold Mining Limited v. Commissioner General (Civil Appeal No. 103 of 2017), arguing those cases failed to consider that no sale, transfer or disposal in the strict sense had occurred. The respondent (TRA) countered that the Board and Tribunal had concurrently found as fact that the 'giving' of fuel to contractors amounted to a sale/disposition, a factual finding not open to challenge on a second appeal limited to points of law under section 25(2) of the Tax Revenue Appeals Act. TRA further argued that the MDA's grant of unrestricted importation rights to contractors did not exempt them from taxes when due, that the GNs deliberately named only the mining company as beneficiary, and that there was no justification to depart from the Court's earlier rulings in Resolute and Geita Gold Mining (Civil Appeal No. 103 of 2017), which had already held that 'giving' tax-exempt fuel to contractors constitutes disposition regardless of the fuel's end use.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal with costs, upholding the Tribunal's decision. Applying strict/literal rules of tax statute interpretation (citing Cape Brandy Syndicate v. Inland Revenue Commissioner and BP Tanzania v. Commissioner General), the Court held that while the MDA expressly named both the company and its contractors as entitled to import fuel without restriction, the GNs deliberately omitted contractors, naming only the mining licence holder as the beneficiary of the tax remission—an omission the Court found intentional (expressio unius est exclusio alterius), not to be filled by implication. The Court found that the GN conditions (no transfer/sale/disposal, and use for the intended mining purpose) were structured precisely to exclude unintended beneficiaries like contractors, so it was unnecessary for the GNs to expressly state the fuel must be used by the company itself. Supplying the remitted fuel to contractors, who were not entitled to similar privileges, therefore constituted a 'disposition' within the meaning of the GNs, breaching the remission conditions and rightly triggering TRA's demand for payment. The Court declined the appellant's invitation to depart from its earlier decisions in Resolute Tanzania Limited and Geita Gold Mining Limited (Civil Appeal No. 103 of 2017), noting that the appellant had not complied with Rule 106(3) of the Court of Appeal Rules requiring such an invitation to be clearly flagged in written submissions, and that in any event no sufficient grounds existed to justify departure; moreover, per Abually Alibhai Azizi v. Bhatia Brothers Ltd., such a departure would ideally require consideration by a bench of five judges. All three issues were answered in favour of the respondent, and the Tribunal's decision was affirmed in its entirety.
The judgment reaffirms the principle that tax exemption statutes must be interpreted strictly and literally, with no room for equitable considerations or implied terms ('nothing is to be read in, nothing to be implied'). It clarifies that where a Mine Development Agreement extends benefits to both a mining company and its contractors, but subsidiary Government Notices granting specific tax remissions name only the mining company, the omission of contractors is presumed intentional and courts will not imply their inclusion via purposive interpretation. The case confirms that providing tax-remitted fuel to contractors not otherwise entitled to the exemption constitutes a prohibited 'disposition' under the relevant GNs, regardless of whether ownership formally transferred or payment was exchanged, and irrespective of whether the fuel was ultimately used for the mining company's own operations. It also reinforces the procedural principle (from Rule 106(3), Tanzania Court of Appeal Rules) that a party seeking departure from the Court's own precedent must expressly flag this intention in written submissions, and reaffirms the Court's reluctance to depart from its prior decisions absent solemn justification, ideally reserving such departures for a bench of five judges. The decision follows and consolidates the Court's earlier rulings in Resolute Tanzania Limited v. Commissioner General and Geita Gold Mining Limited v. Commissioner General (Civil Appeal No. 103 of 2017), entrenching a consistent line of authority on the scope of mining fuel tax remissions in Tanzania.
Speak directly with our advocates. We turn precedent into actionable advice for your matter.