Civil Appeal No. 58 of 2020
Oryx Oil supplied fuel between 2007 and 2008 to ships destined for foreign ports. Oryx claimed that the fuel qualified for duty drawback under the East African Community Customs Management Act, 2004 (EACCMA).
Oryx had sought a refund of TZS 426,421,184, arguing that it had supplied the fuel with the consent of the customs authorities and had complied with the applicable requirements for the drawback scheme.
TRA refused the refund. Oryx appealed to the Tax Revenue Appeals Board, which found in Oryx's favour and ordered the parties to bear their own costs.
TRA then appealed to the Tax Revenue Appeals Tribunal. The Tribunal reversed the Board's decision, holding that Oryx had not satisfied the conditions for duty drawback, including the requirements applicable under the open system contemplated by section 138 of EACCMA. Oryx appealed to the Court of Appeal.
The substantive ground raised by Oryx was whether the Tribunal had erred in holding that Oryx did not satisfy the statutory conditions for obtaining duty drawback.
However, TRA raised a preliminary objection challenging the competence of the appeal itself.
The objection was that the Tribunal's decree had been signed only by the Vice-Chairman, rather than by all members who had participated in the decision, contrary to Rule 21 of the Tax Revenue Appeals Tribunal Rules, 2001.
The Court of Appeal upheld the preliminary objection and struck out the appeal with costs.
The Court held that the Tribunal's decree was required to be properly signed and certified by the members of the Tribunal who heard the matter. The defective decree therefore rendered the appeal incompetent.
Importantly, the Court did not determine the substantive question of whether Oryx was actually entitled to the TZS 426,421,184 duty drawback. The appeal failed on a procedural/competence ground.
The important principle from Oryx Oil is procedural:
A decree of the Tax Revenue Appeals Tribunal forming part of the record of appeal must comply with the statutory requirements concerning signing and certification.
The Court treated the decree as a necessary document in an appeal. It relied on Rule 24(3) of the Tax Revenue Appeals Tribunal Rules together with Rule 96(2)(e) of the Court of Appeal Rules, under which the decree was a primary document required in the record of appeal.
Consequently, an improperly signed or certified Tribunal decree can render an appeal incompetent and liable to be struck out, rather than merely being treated as an irregularity that can be ignored.
Speak directly with our advocates. We turn precedent into actionable advice for your matter.