20110704 TZCA Dar es salaam

121h M;-iy &. n· th Julyr 2011 . . I<:ILEO J,A. rhis is.·· a· Ruling pursuant: to a Prellmin?ry Object[on iai$ed by· the-:' Commission~r..G~n.eral, Tanzania Revenue- A.uthorily _thfou.gh its jearf!ec(. · c~·w,sel, Mr.Feli; · Haufe. When the· Preliminary {Jbjecti:on cari,e fQ-r l)~adng< .··.~. ' ;_ ·. t.-·· Qbjec~i.cl1'\~·;_s~·fi/et} ~r',.~1ei:>· . >i_:-;/'.:., :\ ~- 'Mr.Haule informed the Court th-at' the 'Preliminary • •<- ".;"·~:~~.:_::_1>'_:~· .. ;. ..:"'·;:'.:}.0. ·. ;._·, -~~-,~- ,. ?. . . . :, ·.. -~-'· \ :-· - r- - Rule 107 (1) of the Court of Appeal Rule~_.ar!d Rufe 21.,of-_Tax.,·!teveh_i.1(\.::~i'.< '.< ,_:; ·;• .. . . ·- -~ .· . .... . . . ,_,-.. _· ... __ •:; -< •, ' . :._ ._ "Appeals Tribunal Rules of 200 L ·A2garently- when he flied .tba~oJ;i.ce...:..Qf:..--.· .-_ .· .: ,·.· -:>: · l~' • . .../ • f' ~ ,; • • • . ,,I: ' . ' . • ·, ~•• ' • • • ,<, ' Pr.e_liniinary objectk>n . ---tl1~.Jeai:oed...couns~L.J1ad_p.o_t cited"--the · rel.evant .·_'·. ~- :; •••·• 1·· ... ,;,,_ . ~. ·• -~ ......... : - - - - . - - - . ·.··• . . ':tJfi / ·:~ '"' . . ... I: .- . f •. ·. :· .. , .. . •. I • ' -. . ·, I ... ,.,,.,.•·. - . '· - ~ ~ '. ,, . f'~ i~. I •, - e±J p . 'I. ~- ·. . (;~\' ~:, -;- ' . prov,sron under which the objection had been Rrefe·,-r~d. We did not_·\ ·.~ ·- ~ •~•• ••••~ , •~ - • , . •. . , .__ . • , consider the· nonM citation of the relevar1t p1·ovlsJon 1n tl1e

Notice s<, C' ,,. ,•J,•"'.' . . . ., . , . , , , . C .... . , __ . . . . '"''•"!"~"-'"'"'!"•.-••- ot . ·. Pr-eUmina~ Objection t~ b'e $om.etl~lr,ig tl1at co~ld deter the ·dellve1y of . ·-~blbstantia·r justice · · -~··. · · ·· .' ~ ;·. . " '. ·. · : · · ,' · • •• • • '',•••• ., •~=~•-;,._,' •,. I ·•· •• •,· ••: ~ •--• ~ • I o 4 • I :,. .. • 4 I .. t ~ • I II • · • • I • •.•• ~ I,• f - I t :",. • • ti j i • • f : •• t ' I • •,· t 'I t I,, f I • I . . , • ,., • , I , · Su~milting before us o Mr. ·.Haule argued that .the appeal was not prop~1~ly .• I ·• I f before the Court as the decision of the Trlbunal was cettifled by the Regist~ar •instead of the Members a~ required ur~der Rule 21 of the• Tax Rev~nue Appeals Tribunal Rules, GN 56 of 2001. The Jearned couns.el cited the case of Ami Port Opera.~i.6t1s (T) Lirn.ite~· . . for Income. V. The C.omn1iss-ibner . Tax, decided . by this Court ' in Civii:- ' Appeal • No.28 ,.of 2005• hi support of his , .argumen~. I,:-i that case the decisido . I · _ - of the Tribu~al was· signed by two members instead of air the three; who . made up the Coram for the Tribunal, Furtherrno-re~ t6e decision. was certified·'·by ·Registrar"contrary:to·'the provisions of ,rule 21 · (supra); The • I .· Court fo.und that . thfs was a defect that affect;eo the validity of the f0.1)Y of, . . . the judgment. in the re.cord of appeal. w. To . that . extent ' .

,, the appeal was· found . \ to be lnco111petent and. was struck out. Mr. Haule urged the Court to strike out the appeal with costs fn the circumstances._ f' , I '' • I rn. his submJssion the learnea counsel for the aµpHcan~, Mr. Constantin1_ • I ... Mutalemwa urged us to, dismiss the Prel·iri1lnary Obj,ectio_n for want of merit • , • • .• . I since the judgment was signed by all ,members of the Tribunal ar.d thus satisfying the requlr~m<mt of Ral~1-(suprn).; The Ieame_d counsel ar_gued- 1 ''" •, •• , .. t, 'f I• t , ... ,, • . . , _ . , , _ i ,. ' " .... 2 '.. I \ . ·\ \ · ... \ that .signing and certifyin~ ls one and the same thing In tenns of Rule 2.1 of GN 56 of 2001. He cement~d h1s argument by making reference to the .. ·. . . definition of sign·in~-- c)nd certifying g'iVf3n ·1n Jhe Blac.l<'s Law Qictionary~ In . •: • • ' ••• ' , Ii'? ••,:i 1 • • • o I ; : I' I 1.' 1 1 · :_'. · .: • any -ca~e, he pray~~: that Rut~ .2 of 20O~;.oCtl)e Court of App~~( ~91es be . .. ·.- -~ · invoked·· in ·order •• o • o \o.. do substantive jus:ti~e·.· ..Rul-e·· 2i of GN sf :qr 200·1 , o o f I~· I j I · >·::·. provides: ·"21..After. cond.usion of t~,e hearing of th.e evidence and submissiop of the parties the Tribunal ~hall, -as· soon as-_, prac~icab.I~- n1~ke ~ deqision in the presence of the .parties or thei'r adv.qcate$ or ·.repr.esentatives, and shall cause' a cop.y- du1y sign~d: and

certified by. th-e rnem~-ers of the Trj:bunal w~ich. h~ardj th.e. appeal to µe. serve_d on ~qch. p:arl-y tQ...the . . . · .pro~eedirrg" ,, . .•.,,. ,'1 ·• ' - ... - . It is not. In dispute -that the judgment in the cas-e before us was signea· by.-' all the· m-embers of th·e Tribu~al as requlred by the law.· Wh~t ha-~ caused . . the troubie '!s that the copy -~f judgment. in the ·.record Qf appeal '«as . . . . certified . by 'the. R-egistrar. The Ami case referred to. by Mr. Haule is therefore distinguishable from this case. as in that case the judgment was . signed by ~nly two m.ember~ of the Tribunal instead of three members~ . ' ' This wquld mean that at the time of delivery of judgment the Tribunaf was· ,. ' ' not properly constituted. Not only that, tile Anri case was determined in . . the light of th~ d-ld Court of Appeal Rules while the present case ls being determined In the ji~ht of the 2009 Co~rt Rules.,' . •l ... • I t • ••. I •1 oli ~ .. , ' 3 I. As stated ear.tier, Mr. Mutalemwa askeci us to Invoke the provisions of Rule < 2 of li1e 2009 ·Rules to ensure that substantive justice Is _done. This Ryle which is a • ne·w .provisiqn as lt wai: not in the -old Rules. was -intended to •• • ' • : -.· : • ' ' •• "' I j f I I ' : cure the: r:nJ9chi:ef brought abou~•,' by giving. unneces~ary_ ._rega·rq_.: to · technicalities: -It provides! . :/ . . . . _:\. ·. . ,I • . \\In

adininist~ting these R~[es, the Court sha}'f have clue . • • ' I regar~s to the need to d9 substantive_justice in·the :i:,.articufai- case." This .is als? in H1~e w_ith_ the provisions of Artic'le 107A (2) (e)- of the · Constitution of-the; United Repu_blic of T.anzania \:{hich st9tes: '· "!n . delivering decisions.· in maltei·s of civi'I and .cd.mi'na I ;'. na~ure in accprdan.ce with. the laws the .court shall .obselve : the foliowiri.g principles, that is to say~ I . - • - ' ~ • • ·- - _,(a) .•.• S I 1,, I I I • t • 9 ■. (e) to dis.pense justice wjthou.t being. tied up w.ith undue technical p.r~OVisidn~ ~hich .may obstruct<lisJJ·en.s:ation of·.· ~· . ·j:trstice. · Reading R~le 21 of GN 56 of 2001 in the light ·of Rule 2 of the Court of · Appeal Rul€s 2009 ·In conjunction with Article 1O7A (2) (e) of our , Constitution . leads us to the.. settled mind that the fact tl1at it was the .... ' Reglstr ar wlio. certified that the copy of. the qecision was a true copy of the origin.al did· not occa:slon a miscarriage of justice and fo:r--this r~ason we would not find the appeal before us to. be lncompe.tent. It would have been 4 . .. - }. """ .. _,.,.,,• :- l ! -:. . ~. ( .. diff2.rent if there w?.s a comp'lalnt that tile copy of judgment 1n tl1e record !', did not .reflect a true copy of tl1~ orlglnal. . . . ';: .' ...; <. . t .. t' ':,•~,\I\ o • • '•' ' ,~ t ·• I •\ . I . The

Preliminary objectlon is· .in·'.~h_~··.c;:,ircui,:1~tance? ov~'t,-/W.1.~d. The .appe·llant ~· · •, I , , :, , , • • • ... • ' • ' 't Ii • 1 O : ' t t Ii ' 1/ 1 is· direied to. o~tain and fi.le. \n-· the r~cord a ·proj,~~I~. certified copy of::_ . :··\ judgme~t.. This is to ~e - done within two,' weeks of· ti~·e deHvery of .this . : • ,, ,,. I d€cision. The appeal ls to_ be 'fixed for hearing on a date to be fixed by the· Registrar. · Each party shall bear its own costs ' I DATED at'DAR ES SALAAM this-4u1 day of July, 2011-. H. R. NSEl<ELA

JUSTICE OF APPEAL .E. A. KILEO JUSTICE OF APPE/S;L S.J. BWANA

JUSTICE OF APPEAL that th1s Is a.true copy of the original. . \ ' • \ 0 ., :, D.E .. co