Robert Mabulala v Zimbabwe Revenue Authority

The applicant was employed as a Counsellor at the Embassy of the Republic of Zimbabwe in Pretoria, South Africa from July 2016 to 1 June 2024. In December 2023, he purchased a second-hand ISUZU KB 280 motor vehicle manufactured in South Africa in July 2001. Upon his return to Zimbabwe on 1 June 2024 as a returning diplomat, he brought two motor vehicles: a Land Rover Defender and the ISUZU. The Defender was cleared by ZIMRA under the immigrant's rebate facility. However, on 2 August 2024, ZIMRA's Station Manager issued a letter stating that the ISUZU could not be imported as it was manufactured more than 10 years ago in terms of SI 54/24, and directed that it be re-exported to South Africa at the applicant's expense. The applicant appealed to the Regional Manager (dismissed 23 August 2024) and then to the Commissioner Customs and Excise (dismissed 6 December 2024). He then sought judicial review of ZIMRA's decision. The applicant had been issued with a report order at Plumtree Border Post and subsequently obtained an import licence on 22 July 2024.

• Whether ZIMRA's decision to refuse clearance and order re-exportation of the ISUZU was grossly unreasonable and irrational
• Whether the applicant was entitled to an immigrant's rebate for both motor vehicles as a returning diplomat
• Whether the prohibition on importing vehicles over 10 years old applied to diplomats returning from foreign postings
• Whether the import licence issued on 22 July 2024 entitled the applicant to clear the vehicle by paying duty
• Whether the report order issued at the port of entry entitled the applicant to have the vehicle cleared
• The proper interpretation of SI 54/24 and SI 111/24 in relation to the immigrant's rebate regime under the Customs and Excise Act

1. The application for review is hereby dismissed for lack of merit. 2. The applicant shall bear the respondent's costs of suit on the ordinary scale.

An immigrant is entitled to a rebate of duty in respect of only one motor vehicle at the time the rebate is claimed, as provided in section 105(4)(b) of the Customs and Excise (General) Regulations, 2001. The exemption in SI 111/24 for second-hand vehicles aged 10 years and above belonging to diplomats returning from postings abroad only applies to vehicles granted immigrant rebates by ZIMRA in accordance with the Customs and Excise Act and related legislation. An import licence issued after the promulgation of SI 54/24 (which prohibited the processing or issuance of import licences for used vehicles purchased or consigned after its promulgation) is invalid and nugatory. A report order is merely a form of deferred clearance to facilitate movement of goods to an inland port and does not create an entitlement to clearance where the substantive requirements for importation are not met. Where an administrative decision is based on a correct application of the law, it cannot be set aside on review as grossly unreasonable or irrational merely because it causes hardship to the applicant.

The court observed that even without the explanatory note to SI 111/24, the applicant's argument that he was entitled to rebates for both vehicles would have been unsustainable, as both SI 54/24 and SI 111/24 must be read together with the Customs and Excise Act and its regulations which govern the rebate regime. The court also noted that it would not be expected that the respondent should act on the basis of a licence that had been issued in violation of the law, emphasizing that administrative bodies cannot give effect to instruments that are contrary to statute.

This case clarifies the scope and limitations of the immigrant's rebate facility under the Customs and Excise Act and regulations. It establishes that: (1) The immigrant's rebate is strictly limited to one motor vehicle per immigrant within a four-year period, regardless of the applicant's status as a diplomat. (2) Import licences issued after the promulgation of regulations banning their issuance are invalid and of no legal effect, even if issued by the same ministry that promulgated the regulations. (3) Report orders issued at ports of entry are merely procedural instruments for deferred clearance and do not create substantive rights to importation. (4) Exemptions from import bans (such as those in SI 111/24 for diplomats) must be read together with the substantive regulatory regime governing rebates and do not override statutory limitations. (5) Courts will not interfere with administrative decisions that are based on proper application of the law, even where they result in hardship to the applicant. The case demonstrates the principle that ignorance of the law or administrative inconvenience does not constitute grounds for judicial review where the decision-maker has correctly applied the law.