Twotap Logistics (Pvt) Ltd v Zimbabwe Revenue Authority

On 18 July 2020, the respondent (ZIMRA) issued a notice of seizure of the applicant's truck and tanker (reference number 00348L). By letter dated 27 July 2020, the applicant's legal practitioners (Gonese Ndlovu Legal Practitioners) wrote to ZIMRA's Station Manager at Forbes Border post regarding the seizure. The Regional Manager responded on 18 August 2020, stating that the tanker trucks and petroleum products would remain impounded and would be forfeited to the state. On 12 October 2020, a different firm of legal practitioners wrote to the Commissioner of Customs and Excise appealing the decision. ZIMRA addressed the appeal by letter dated 11 January 2021. On 14 October 2020, the applicant served notice to institute proceedings. The application for recovery of the seized goods was filed on 2 March 2021. ZIMRA raised two points in limine: (1) that the claim had prescribed under section 193(12) of the Customs and Excise Act which required proceedings to be instituted within three months of the notice of seizure, and (2) that the applicant had not given proper 60 days' notice under section 196(1) of the Act (this second objection was later abandoned).

• What is the meaning of instituting legal proceedings within three months from the date of the cause of action under section 193(12) of the Customs and Excise Act?
• Is there a requirement that internal remedies should be exhausted before instituting civil proceedings for recovery of seized goods?
• Whether the applicant's claim for recovery of seized goods had prescribed under section 193(12) of the Customs and Excise Act [Chapter 23:02]
• The interpretation and application of section 193(12) read with section 196(2) of the Customs and Excise Act regarding time limits for instituting proceedings

The respondent's point in limine on prescription was upheld. The application was dismissed with costs.

The binding legal principle established is that under section 193(12) of the Customs and Excise Act [Chapter 23:02], proceedings for recovery of seized goods must be instituted within three months of the notice of seizure being given, and this time period is peremptory and not subject to extension. The exhaustion of internal administrative remedies does not suspend or extend the three-month prescription period provided for in section 193(12). The cause of action for purposes of the prescription period is the notice of seizure itself. Section 196(2) of the Act, which provides for an eight-month period to bring proceedings, is expressly made subject to section 193(12), meaning the shorter three-month period applies in cases involving seizure and forfeiture of goods.

The court noted that in Qingsham Investment (Pvt) Ltd v ZIMRA, HH-207-17, the exhaustion of internal remedies was considered, but distinguished that case on the basis that it was in the context of an urgent application and therefore not applicable to the present matter. The court also observed that there is nothing in the law that requires a person to exhaust internal remedies before instituting civil proceedings for recovery of seized goods. The court further noted the general rule that costs should follow the cause, especially in non-constitutional matters.

This case is significant in Zimbabwean customs and excise law as it clarifies the strict application of prescription periods under section 193(12) of the Customs and Excise Act [Chapter 23:02]. It establishes that the three-month period for instituting proceedings for recovery of seized goods runs from the date of the notice of seizure and is not extended by the pursuit of internal remedies or appeals. The case reinforces the principle that statutory time limits for instituting proceedings are peremptory and cannot be extended by the exhaustion of internal administrative remedies. It also clarifies the relationship between section 193(12) and section 196(2) of the Act, confirming that the eight-month period under section 196(2) is subject to the three-month limitation under section 193(12).