Digital Mechanics (Pvt) Ltd v Zimbabwe Revenue Authority

The applicant imported an Audi A4 motor vehicle from Japan on 8 January 2019, which had been purchased on 22 November 2018 and consigned on 7 December 2018. The vehicle was detained at Plumtree border post by Zimbabwe Revenue Authority pending clearance. On 8 January 2019, applicant applied for exemption from paying duty in foreign currency in terms of SI 252A of 2018, which provides that goods purchased on or before 22 November 2018 and consigned on or before 3 January 2019 shall be exempted from payment of duty in foreign currency. Multiple applications for exemption were turned down between 12 January and 26 February 2019. The motor vehicle was sold at a rummage sale on 12 April 2019 after the 2-month clearance period under section 39 of the Customs and Excise Act expired. Applicant was advised of the sale on 19 June 2019 but only instituted the current proceedings on 5 June 2020, seeking a declaratur that the respondent's conduct was unlawful and demanding delivery of a similar vehicle.

• Whether the applicant's claims had prescribed under section 196(1) of the Customs and Excise Act
• Whether there was material non-joinder of the Ministry of Finance and Economic Development
• Whether the applicant was entitled to the declaratur sought
• Whether the court could exercise discretion under section 14 of the High Court Act to override prescription provisions

The application was dismissed with costs.

1. Claims against the Zimbabwe Revenue Authority under the Customs and Excise Act must be instituted within 8 months from the date the cause of action arose, as required by section 196(1) of the Act. 2. The cause of action arises from the date when the aggrieved party becomes aware of the prejudicial action taken by the revenue authority. 3. Prescription operates to extinguish existing rights, and courts cannot determine rights that have been extinguished by operation of law. 4. Courts cannot exercise general discretionary powers under section 14 of the High Court Act to override mandatory prescription provisions in specific legislation such as the Customs and Excise Act. 5. Failure to institute proceedings within the statutory prescription period is fatal to a claim, regardless of the merits of the underlying dispute.

The court observed that the non-joinder of the Ministry of Finance and Economic Development was not fatal to the proceedings, noting that Rule 87 of the High Court Rules provides that no cause shall be defeated by reason of non-joinder of any party. The court also commented on the applicant's conduct, describing it as being "characterized by a sluggardness that is difficult to comprehend," noting the inexplicable delays at various stages of the process. The court further observed that under section 39 of the Act, goods that are not cleared within 60 days of importation are to be sold by public auction, suggesting that the disposal of the vehicle was lawful under this provision.

This case reinforces the strict application of prescription periods under section 196(1) of the Customs and Excise Act in Zimbabwe. It establishes that claims against the Zimbabwe Revenue Authority must be instituted within 8 months of the cause of action arising, and that courts will not exercise general discretionary powers to override such mandatory statutory prescription periods. The case also clarifies that the cause of action arises when the aggrieved party becomes aware of the prejudicial action (in this case, the sale of the vehicle), not from some earlier date. The judgment emphasizes that prescription operates to extinguish rights, making it futile to attempt to determine rights that no longer exist by operation of law. This case serves as a cautionary tale about the importance of timeously pursuing legal remedies in customs and excise matters.