The dispute originated from a Value Added Tax (VAT) assessment involving Karibu Textile Mills Limited and the Commissioner General of the Tanzania Revenue Authority (TRA). The Tax Revenue Appeals Board initially decided in favour of Karibu Textile Mills Limited, but the Commissioner General successfully appealed to the Tax Revenue Appeals Tribunal.
Karibu Textile Mills subsequently appealed to the Court of Appeal within the prescribed time. However, following the Court of Appeal's decision in Midcom Tanzania Limited v Commissioner General (TRA), which required Tribunal proceedings, decisions and orders to be properly signed and certified, Karibu Textile Mills discovered defects affecting its appeal and withdrew it in May 2015.
The company then took steps to prepare a competent appeal in compliance with subsequent judicial decisions. These included obtaining the necessary documents, certified exhibits and a certificate on points of law, although the latter requirement was subsequently clarified as unnecessary for appeals of this nature.
The company received certified exhibits on 27 March 2017 but filed its application for an extension of time on 27 April 2017. It did not explain the ensuing thirty-day delay. Although the TRA supported the application, the Court independently examined whether sufficient cause had been established.
The principal issues were:
1. Whether Karibu Textile Mills Limited had demonstrated good cause to justify an extension of time to lodge its memorandum and record of appeal.
2. Whether the applicant had sufficiently accounted for every day of delay, particularly the thirty-day period between receiving the certified exhibits and filing the application.
3. Whether the respondent's consent to the application was sufficient to justify the Court granting an extension of time.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the application for an extension of time.
The Court acknowledged that the applicant had demonstrated diligence in attempting to comply with previous judicial decisions and in preparing a procedurally competent appeal. However, it found that the applicant had failed to explain why it waited thirty days after completing those preparations before filing the application.
The Court reaffirmed that an applicant seeking an extension of time under Rule 10 of the Tanzania Court of Appeal Rules, 2009, must demonstrate good cause for the delay. The respondent's consent did not relieve the applicant of this obligation because the Court had an independent duty to determine whether the legal requirements for extending time had been satisfied.
No order as to costs was made because the respondent had supported the application.
The decision reinforces the principle that an applicant seeking an extension of time must adequately explain the period of delay. Even where the principal reasons for lateness are understandable, an unexplained period may be fatal to the application.
The Court relied on Bushiri Hassan v Latifa Lukio Mashayo, Civil Application No. 3 of 2007, for the principle that even a single day's delay must be accounted for.
Although Rule 10 gives the Court discretion to extend time, that discretion must be exercised judicially. The applicant must establish good cause based on the particular circumstances of the case. The Court will not grant an extension merely because the opposing party consents.
The decision demonstrates the importance of taking prompt action once obstacles to filing an appeal have been resolved. Compliance with procedural requirements and efforts to correct defects in court records do not excuse subsequent unexplained delays.
Relying on Ratnam v Cumarasamy and Another [1964] 3 All ER 933, the Court emphasized that procedural time limits must ordinarily be obeyed. Extensions require a proper evidential basis; otherwise, litigation deadlines would lose their effectiveness.
For taxpayers challenging TRA decisions, the case highlights the importance of maintaining a clear chronology of procedural steps, documenting requests for court records and certified exhibits, and promptly filing applications whenever a deadline has been missed.
Karibu Textile Mills Limited v Commissioner General (TRA) establishes that diligence in preparing an appeal is not enough if a subsequent period of delay remains unexplained. An applicant must demonstrate good cause for the entire delay, and the Court retains the responsibility to assess that requirement even where the TRA consents to the application.
Speak directly with our advocates. We turn precedent into actionable advice for your matter.