Star Media (Tanzania) Limited vs Commissioner General Tanzania Revenue Authority (Civil Application No. 6/1 of 2025) [2026] TZCA 447 (28 April 2026)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT DODOMA CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6/1 OF 2025 STAR MEDIA (TANZANIA) LIMITED ........... ......................... APPLICANT VERSUS COMMISSIONER GENERAL TRA ........................................ RESPONDENT (Application for stay of execution of the decision of the Tax Revenue Appeals Tribunal at Dar es salaam) (Kamuzora, V. C. Mandari and Oamdive. Members) dated the 23rd day of March, 2022 in Tax Appeal No. 27 of 2021 RULING 10th September, 2025 & 28th April, 2026 KHAMIS, 3.A.: Star Media (Tanzania) Limited, the applicant, lodged a notice of motion under rule 11 of the Tanzania Court of Appeal Rules, 2009 (the Rules) for an order of stay of execution of the decision of the Tax Revenue Appeals Tribunal made on 23rd day of March, 2022 pending determination of an application for extension of time to file a notice of appeal. The notice of motion was supported by an affidavit affirmed by of one Chen Chen, a principal officer of the applicant. The parties' dispute stems from a notice of adjusted assessment of tax issued by the Commissioner General of the Tanzania Revenue

Authority, the respondent, on 3rd January, 2018 following which the applicant sought a waiver of payment of one - third of the assessed tax or the tax not in dispute, whichever is greater, as a condition for admission of an objection to a tax decision which was to be paid within 30 days from the date of service of the tax decision. On 16th April, 2018 the respondent rejected the waiver application and for this reason, the applicant's objection was not admitted by the respondent. Disgruntled, the applicant appealed to the Tax Appeals Board (the TRAB) but the appeal was dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Discontented, the applicant lodged an appeal to the Tax Appeals Tribunal (the TRAT) faulting the TRAB in finding that, it had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The TRAT found the appeal lacked merits and proceeded to dismiss it with costs. On 27th March, 2025 the applicant lodged a notice of motion for an extension of time within which to lodge a notice of appeal against the impugned decision of the TRAT. The said application is pending in this Court as Civil Application No. 6/01 of 2025. Meanwhile, on 3rd June, 2025 the respondent served the applicant with a notice which assessed the tax due at TZS 6,450,127,735.13. 2

In the affidavit in support of the application, Chen Chen deposed that, while examining its bank statement on 4th June, 2025 the applicant realized that its banker, CRDB Bank PLC (CRDB Bank), had debited its account no. 01J1031396900 with TZS 400,000,000.00 and remitted that sum to the respondent since 26th April, 2025. He averred that, if the said trend was left to continue, the applicant would suffer irreparably as the assessed tax was substantial and, if withdrawn from the applicant's business, would cripple its operations. He further averred that, the applicant's business depended on its cash flow to meet operational obligations such as payment of salaries. He expressed the applicant's commitment and willingness to execute a bond for the due performance of the impugned decree or the ultimate order of the Court. The respondent filed an affidavit in reply sworn by Amon Meja, learned legal counsel, who strongly opposed the application on the ground that, there was no pending appeal before the Court. He insisted that, the application was unjustified as there was no application for execution lodged at the TRAB or the TRAT and that, no notice of execution was ever issued by the tribunals below. 3

He disputed an allegation that the applicant became aware of the remittance on 4th June, 2025 and countered that, the banker should have informed its customer beforehand in line with the standard banking practice. On the bank statement relied upon by the applicant, the deponent averred that, it neither showed the remittance nor the sum allegedly debited from the applicant's account. At the hearing of this application, Mr. Harrison B. Mchau, learned advocate, assisted by Ms. Sarah Michael Kironde, also learned advocate, represented the applicant, while the respondent had the legal services of Mr. Amon Meja, learned State Attorney, When Mr. Mchau took the stage, he adopted the affidavit in support of the notice of motion and highlighted the prerequisites for the grant of an order for stay of execution in terms of rule 11 of the Rules. With reference to paragraph 8 of the affidavit in support of the notice of motion, he cited the case of Turkish Airlines Incorporation Limited v. Kisambu Mathias Sakunda & Another, Civil Application No. 737 of 2025 [2025] TZCA 563 (3 June 2025) for the proposition that, the applicant is bound to explain the

substantial and irreparable loss to be suffered in case an order for stay of execution is not issued. On the security for the due performance of the decree of the court or the ultimate decision of this Court, the learned counsel placed reliance on the case of Tanzania Health Promotion Support v. Commissioner General TRA, Civil Application No. 11 of 2025 [2025] TZCA 751 (25 July 2025) for the proposition that, the law does not strictly demand the said security to be given prior to the grant of the stay order. Mr. Mchau admitted that, no notice of execution was ever issued to the applicant but argued that a letter issued by the respondent on 3r d June, 2025 was executable as it assessed tax at TZS 6,450,127,735.13. He submitted that, there was no requirement for attaching a notice of execution to the application of this nature. Regarding a notice of appeal, the applicant's counsel conceded that, it was not part of the record as the applicant could not file it in time. Instead, the applicant filed an application for extension of time to issue such a notice. He submitted that, the application was proper and could be granted in terms of rule 4 (2) (a) of the Rules. His assertion was backed with the case of First Assurance Company

Limited v. Heritage Insurance Company Tanzania Limited, Civil Application No. 364 of 2025 [2025] TZCA 184 (5 March 2025) where the Court invoked rule 4 (1) and (2) of the Rules to grant an order for stay of execution pending review. On his part, Mr. Meja adopted his own affidavit in reply and the written submissions earlier on filed by the respondent in terms of rule 106 of the Rules. At the outset, he contended that, the applicant failed to satisfy the mandatory requirements for grant of an order for stay of execution in terms of rule 11 (5) of the Rules, namely; one, failure to demonstrate that substantial loss may result unless the order is made; two, the application was made without unreasonable delay; and three, deposit of security for the due performance of the decree or ultimate order of the Court. Mr. Meja rebuked the applicant's claim that the assessed tax was substantial and likely to cripple its operations. He argued that, the contention was baseless as important documents such as audited accounts, financial statements, or bank records were not produced by the applicant. He further argued that, it was the respondent who suffered irreparable loss owing to the applicant's persistent refusal to pay the assessed tax for almost five years. He implored the Court to

find that, it was in the public interest that the assessed tax be collected from the applicant who has no valid reason for non - payment. Inviting the Court to dismiss the application for lack of merits, the learned State Attorney contended that, in terms of section 82 (1) of the Tax Administration Act, Cap 438 R.E 2023 (the TAA) the applicant could be refunded the taxes paid in excess in the event of success of its intended appeal. In support of the assertion that the application was unjustified and premature, he placed reliance on the case of Paula David Kifaru v. Krim Shahbudin Ally, Civil Application No. 174/01 of 2017 [2019] TZCA 448 (23 October 2019) where this Court underscored that, a party seeking stay of execution must satisfy cumulatively all the conditions stipulated under rule 11 of the Rules, namely: one, that a notice of appeal was given; two, existence of a sufficient cause for stay of execution; three, the application was filed within time; four, the applicant would suffer substantial loss if the order for stay of execution is not granted; and five, that, the applicant has furnished security for the due performance of the decree of the court. 7

Mr. Meja implored the Court to consider that, a notice of appeal was not lodged by the applicant contrary to the requirements of rule 11 (7) (a) of the Rules; the application for extension of time to lodge a notice of appeal was an abuse of the court process calculated to delay payment of the assessed tax; and that, the application for stay of execution was unnecessary as the applicants were present when the impugned decision of the TRAT was delivered. By way of rejoinder, Mr. Mchau reiterated his earlier submissions and contended that, the authorities relied upon by the respondent were distinguishable. I have considered the notice of motion, the affidavit in reply and the learned counsel rival submissions. The issue for determination is whether this Court is vested with the jurisdiction to entertain this application for stay of execution. The legal principle that this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain an application ancillary to the appeal, if no notice of appeal is in existence, is well settled. Rule 11 (3) of the Rules empowers the Court to order stay of execution where a notice of appeal has been lodged under rule 83 of the Rules. 8

According to rule 11 (7) (a) of the Rules, an application for stay of execution shall be accompanied by a copy of the notice of appeal. Failure to file a notice of appeal within the stipulated time means there is no competent appeal in place, rendering the application for stay incompetent (See Mosses Mollel v. Paschal Arusha, Civil Application No. 682/02 of 2024 [2024] TZCA 928 (24 September, 2024). In Paulo David Kifaru (supra) this Court held that, for an application for stay of execution to be granted, the applicant must satisfy cumulatively the conditions stipulated under rule 11 of the Rules, the first of which being presence of a timely filed notice of appeal. In Ibrahim Ally Yusuf Mpore v. Nargis Ally Yusuf Mpore and Rahmat Ahmad Juma, Civil Application No. 193 of 2016 [2016] TZCA 901 (26 October, 2016), the Court emphasized that, a timely filed notice of appeal is a pre-condition for stay of execution under rule 11 of the Rules. In the case of Tanzania Electric Supply Company Limited v. Dowans Holdings S.A (Costa Rica) and Dowans Tanzania 9

Limited (Tanzania), Civil Application No. 142 of 2012 (unreported), the Court expressed itself that: "It is settled law in our jurisprudence, which is not disputed by counsel for the applicant that, the lodging of a notice of appeal in this Court against an appealable decree or order o f the High Court, commences proceedings in the Court. We are equally convinced that, it has long been established law that, once a notice o f appeal has been duly lodged, the High court ceases to have jurisdiction over the matter." In Matsushita Electric Co. Ltd v. Charles George t/a CG Travers, Civil Application No. 71 of 2001 (unreported), this Court maintained its stance, that: "Once a notice o f appeal is filed under Rule 76 then this Court is seized o f the matter in exclusion o f the High Court except for applications specifically provided for, such as leave to appeal, provision o f a certificate of law..." 10

In the case of Engen Petroleum Limited v. Commissioner General Tanzania Revenue Authority, Civil Application No. 137 of 2004 (unreported), the Court held that: "It is only the notice of appeal which clothes this Court with jurisdiction to order stay of execution under Rule 9 (2) (b) above... What is required is evidence that notice o f appeal has been lodged in terms o f rule 76 (1)." In the case of Sadia Abdallah Alawi v. Zulekha Suleiman Alawi & National Bank of Commerce, Civil Reference No. 29 of 1997 (unreported), the Court stated that presence of a notice of appeal is a prerequisite for granting a stay of execution. In the case of Jane Machness Macharia v. Lucy Macharia Ess, Civil Application No. 132 of 2009 [2010] TZCA 66 (10 November 2010) the Court was confronted with a similar issue and observed that: " The issue confronting us now is, if the power o f this Court to grant a stay of execution under rule 9 (2) (b) is exercisable only upon there being a valid notice o f appeal in this case to grant what Mr. Ukwong'a is ii

asking for us. The answer is not far to fetch... the lack o f a notice of appeal against the impugned High Court decision dated 14 September, 2009, renders the application before us incompetent. Therefore, we lack the requisite jurisdiction to grant what Mr. Ukwong'a prayed for." In the case of National Housing Corporation v. Etiennes Hotel, Civil Application No. 175 of 2004 [2004] TZCA 186 (31 December 2004) the Court emphasized this requirement, thus: "...the existence o f o f a notice o f appeal is a sine qua non for the exercise o f the powers o f stay o f execution by this Court. That has been decided by a number o f decisions o f this Court and in Afro Helicopter T/ Ltd v . F. W . Jansen, Civil Application No. 12 o f 1990, this Court said that once a notice o f appeal has been lodged then the High Court is functus officio in matters o f stay o f execution. I need not belabor the point that the notice o f appeal has to be against the decree to be stayed..." 12

In the case of Ignazio Messina & National Shipping Agencies v. Willow Investment & Costa Shinyanga, Civil Reference No. 8 of 1999 (unreported), the Court pointed out that: ' 7/7 our view, the filing o f a notice o f appeal under rule 9 (2) (b) is a condition which must be satisfied before a party can bring an application for stay o f execution. It is a condition precedent the non-fulfilment of which renders an application for stay of execution incompetent and hence entitles the Court to strike it out. Once a notice o f appeal has been filed, this gives the Court jurisdiction to entertain the application for stay o f execution." I align with the Court's interpretation of its jurisdiction to determine an application for stay of execution when no notice of appeal is lodged by an aggrieved party as pointed out in the above mentioned cases. It is clear from those authorities that, the jurisdiction of this Court is generally invoked by a notice of appeal. In the absence of a notice of appeal, the Court cannot have the power to determine appeals or ancillary applications such as an application for stay of execution. At best, it can only entertain applications for 13

revision and review or any ancillary application arising therefrom as it happened in the case of First Assurance Company Ltd (supra). In the instant application, it is not disputed that, the applicant did not lodge a notice of appeal in terms of rule 83 of the Rules and instead, lodged an application for extension of time within which to lodge a notice of appeal against the impugned decision of the TRAT. In the circumstances, this Court lacks the requisite jurisdiction to determine this application which is accordingly struck out. DATED at DODOMA this 22n d day of April, 2026. The Ruling delivered virtually this 28th day of April, 2026 in the presence of Mr. Hardson Mchau, learned counsel for the Applicant, Mr. Amon Meja, learned State Attorney for the Respondent and Ms. Mariam Kivuma, Court Clerk; is hereby certified as a true copy of the origina A. S. KHAMIS JUSTICE OF APPEAL W. A. HAMZA DEPUTY REGISTRAR COURT OF APPEAL 14