Consilia Chinanzvavana v The Commissioner General of the Zimbabwe Revenue Authority and The Zimbabwe Revenue Authority

On 18 December 2020, the applicant and family members drove from Banket to Dzivarasekwa for a wedding in a Mazda BT50 motor vehicle (Registration AFK7658). On 19 December 2021, while driving the vehicle, the applicant was stopped at Nyabira tollgate along Lomagundi Road, approximately 35km from Harare city centre. The tollgate attendant advised that the second respondent had provided ZINARA with a list of red-flagged vehicles that would not be allowed to pass. The applicant was directed to Nyabira Police Station, 3km from the tollgate, where the second respondent seized the vehicle. The applicant contended the seizure was unlawful and without her consent, and brought a spoliation application for recovery of the vehicle. The applicant did not comply with section 196(1) of the Customs and Excise Act [Chapter 23:02], which requires 60 days' notice before instituting civil proceedings against ZIMRA or its officers.

• Whether the deponent to the respondents' opposing affidavit had proper authority to represent ZIMRA without attaching a company resolution
• Whether there was improper joinder and citation of the Commissioner General of ZIMRA as first respondent
• Whether section 196(1) of the Customs and Excise Act [Chapter 23:02] applies to spoliation proceedings
• Whether failure to comply with the 60-day notice requirement under section 196(1) is fatal to the application

The application was struck off the roll. There was no order as to costs.

Section 196(1) of the Customs and Excise Act [Chapter 23:02] is a peremptory provision that applies to all civil proceedings, including spoliation applications, against ZIMRA or its officers for anything done or omitted under the Act. The requirement to give 60 days' notice before instituting such proceedings cannot be waived and failure to comply renders the proceedings void and of no effect. A deponent acting on behalf of a statutory body need not attach a company resolution in every case; it is sufficient if the deponent sets out facts showing the averments are within his knowledge and demonstrates the basis of his authority to represent the organization.

The court observed that the primary objective of the notice provision under section 196(1) is to provide ZIMRA with timely opportunity to investigate the material facts upon which its actions are challenged and to afford ZIMRA the opportunity to protect itself against consequences of possible wrongful action by tendering early amends. The court noted that each case regarding the requirement for company resolutions must be considered on its own merits, and such proof is not necessary in every case.

This case reinforces the strict application of section 196(1) of the Customs and Excise Act [Chapter 23:02] in Zimbabwean law, confirming that the 60-day notice requirement applies even to spoliation proceedings. It establishes that spoliation applications seeking recovery of property seized by ZIMRA constitute civil proceedings and are not exempt from statutory notice requirements. The case demonstrates the peremptory nature of the notice provision and that non-compliance is fatal to any proceedings, regardless of the nature of the remedy sought. It also provides guidance on when company resolutions are required for authority to depose to affidavits on behalf of statutory bodies.