DDT Engineering and Logistics v Zimbabwe Revenue Authority

The applicant, a transport business, hired its vehicle (an International 9800i Horse Registration Number LL28THGP with trailers KKS570MP/KKS571MP) to one Partial Jeche in December 2021. On 7 December 2021, the truck was intercepted at the border laden with prohibited goods marked for exportation. The truck was seized and issued Notice of Seizure Form 008533, and the goods were issued Notice of Seizure 008534. The driver fled and evaded arrest. On 25 December 2021, ZIMRA's manager wrote to the applicant advising that the vehicle had been forfeited to the state in terms of Section 193(1) and (2) of the Customs and Excise Act [Chapter 23:02]. The Notice of Seizure advised the applicant to submit written representations within three months and to institute proceedings for recovery within three months. The applicant failed to comply with the statutory requirements of giving 60 days' notice of intention to sue and instituting proceedings within 8 months as required by Section 196 of the Act.

• Whether the applicant complied with the peremptory requirement to give 60 days' notice of intention to sue as prescribed by Section 196(1) of the Customs and Excise Act read with the State Liabilities Act
• Whether the applicant instituted proceedings within the prescribed 8-month period as required by Section 196(2) of the Customs and Excise Act
• Whether failure to comply with these statutory prescriptive periods is fatal to the applicant's claim
• Whether the seizure and forfeiture of the vehicle under Sections 188 and 193 of the Customs and Excise Act was lawful

1. The application is struck off the roll. 2. The applicant is ordered to pay the respondent's costs on an ordinary scale.

Failure to comply with the peremptory requirements of Section 196 of the Customs and Excise Act [Chapter 23:02] - namely (1) giving 60 days' notice of intention to sue before instituting proceedings, and (2) bringing proceedings within 8 months of the cause of action arising - is fatal to any civil proceedings against the State, the Commissioner or officers for anything done under the Act. The use of the word 'shall' in the provision makes it peremptory and mandatory. Proceedings instituted contrary to these prohibitions are void and of no effect, applying the principle that a thing done contrary to direct prohibition of law is void.

The court observed that the seizure of the vehicle was done prima facie in terms of the law under Sections 188 and 193 of the Customs and Excise Act, as the vehicle was found to have been smuggling prohibited goods. The court noted that it 'does not need any mathematician to tell us that there is a total failure by the applicant to beat these deadlines', commenting on the obvious nature of the non-compliance. The court also referenced the purpose of the notice requirement as explained in earlier cases: to provide ZIMRA with timely opportunity to investigate material facts and afford it the opportunity to protect itself against consequences of possible wrongful action by tendering early amends.

This case reinforces the strict application of peremptory statutory time limits and procedural requirements in customs and excise litigation in Zimbabwe. It demonstrates that failure to comply with notice requirements and prescribed time periods under Section 196 of the Customs and Excise Act is fatal to proceedings, regardless of the merits of the underlying claim. The judgment emphasizes the importance of procedural compliance in actions against the state and revenue authorities, and confirms that courts will not entertain applications that fail to meet statutory prerequisites.