Issues Before the Court:
- Notice Requirement: Whether the applicant needed to provide 60 days’ notice before filing a review application against ZIMRA officials under the State Liabilities Act (SLA) and the Customs and Excise Act (CEA).
- Review of ZIMRA Decision: Whether ZIMRA’s decision to deny the applicant duty suspension on imported vehicle kits was grossly unreasonable.
Court Decision:
- Notice Requirement: The court ruled that the notice requirement under the SLA and CEA did not apply to this case. An application for review of an administrative decision is not considered a “civil proceeding” under these Acts.
- Review of ZIMRA Decision: The court did not decide on the reasonableness of ZIMRA’s decision. The case was remitted for a rehearing on this issue before a different judge.
Background:
- Quest Motor Manufacturing (applicant) imported vehicle kits believing they qualified for duty suspension under a specific regulation.
- ZIMRA (respondent) initially approved the import but later denied duty suspension, claiming the kits were not truly “semi-knocked down” as defined by the regulation.
- The applicant challenged ZIMRA’s decision through an application for review, arguing it was unreasonable.
- The High Court initially dismissed the application due to a procedural issue (notice requirement).
- The Supreme Court sent the case back for a rehearing on the merits (reasonableness of ZIMRA’s decision).
Current Status:
The case awaits a rehearing before a different judge to determine the reasonableness of ZIMRA’s decision regarding duty suspension on the imported vehicle kits.