Civil Appeal No. 620 of 2023
The plaintiff, Justine Ruta Kaigi, claimed to be the lawful owner of a Mitsubishi Fuso truck (Registration No. T 856 CBJ). After losing the vehicle registration card, he applied to the Tanzania Revenue Authority (TRA) for a replacement. During the process, TRA informed him that the vehicle records reflected an encumbrance (third-party interest) in favour of Mkombozi Commercial Bank PLC, preventing any transfer or other dealings with the vehicle. The plaintiff alleged that the encumbrance had been unlawfully registered without his authority or agreement and sued TRA, the bank, and the Attorney General seeking, among other remedies, removal of the encumbrance, issuance of a new registration card, and general damages of TZS 100 million. The defendants raised preliminary objections challenging the jurisdiction of the High Court, alleging that the dispute fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tax Revenue Appeals Board.
Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to determine a dispute concerning the registration of an encumbrance on a motor vehicle by TRA.
Whether the dispute arose from the administration of a revenue law, thereby falling within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Tax Revenue Appeals Board.
(Raised but not determined) Whether the suit was time-barred, res judicata, and incompetent for failure to issue the statutory 90-day notice to the Government.
The High Court upheld the preliminary objection on jurisdiction and struck out the suit with costs. The Court held that:
The registration of encumbrances on motor vehicles is undertaken by TRA pursuant to the Motor Vehicle (Tax on Registration and Transfer) Act, which is a revenue law administered by TRA.
Since the dispute arose from TRA's exercise of powers under a revenue law, section 7 of the Tax Revenue Appeals Act vested exclusive original jurisdiction in the Tax Revenue Appeals Board.
The High Court therefore lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
Having found that it lacked jurisdiction, the Court declined to determine the remaining preliminary objections relating to limitation, res judicata, and statutory notice, as doing so would have been academic.
The decision reinforces the principle that the nature of the statutory function performed by TRA, rather than the form of the relief sought, determines jurisdiction.
It confirms that disputes arising from TRA's administration of the Motor Vehicle (Tax on Registration and Transfer) Act are revenue disputes that must first be filed before the Tax Revenue Appeals Board.
The case illustrates the strict application of the doctrine that jurisdiction is conferred by statute, and where Parliament has vested exclusive jurisdiction in a specialized tribunal, the High Court cannot assume jurisdiction.
It serves as an important authority for litigants challenging administrative decisions of TRA involving vehicle registration, transfers, or encumbrances under revenue legislation.
Speak directly with our advocates. We turn precedent into actionable advice for your matter.