News / National
MP's challenge on constitutional right against Zimra dismissed
20 Aug 2024 at 10:38hrs | Views
The High Court has dismissed an application challenging the requirement to provide 60 days' notice before initiating proceedings against the Zimbabwe Revenue Authority (Zimra).
Opposition legislator Consilia Chinanzvavana sought a declaration of constitutional invalidity against this notice requirement, arguing it infringed her right to access the courts and a fair trial. The case was heard by Justice Gladys Mhuri, with Tendai Biti representing Chinanzvavana.
Chinanzvavana's grievance arose from an incident in which her vehicle was impounded by Zimra for failing to pay duty. She filed for a spoliation order which was unsuccessful due to not giving the required notice. In her application, she argued that the 60-day notice was an undue constraint on her legal rights, particularly given the financial constraints many face in accessing legal representation.
The Finance Ministry, Zimra, and the Attorney-General opposed the application, arguing that the notice requirement allows for the investigation of claims before litigation and is part of a broader regulatory framework that applies to all claims against the State. They contended that the requirement ensures a fair and efficient resolution of disputes and does not discriminate against individuals.
Justice Mhuri upheld the notice requirement, stating that it is a procedural regulation that does not violate constitutional rights. She concluded that the 60-day notice period serves a legitimate purpose by allowing the State to address issues without litigation and does not impede access to the courts or equal protection under the law. The application was dismissed without an order for costs.
Opposition legislator Consilia Chinanzvavana sought a declaration of constitutional invalidity against this notice requirement, arguing it infringed her right to access the courts and a fair trial. The case was heard by Justice Gladys Mhuri, with Tendai Biti representing Chinanzvavana.
Chinanzvavana's grievance arose from an incident in which her vehicle was impounded by Zimra for failing to pay duty. She filed for a spoliation order which was unsuccessful due to not giving the required notice. In her application, she argued that the 60-day notice was an undue constraint on her legal rights, particularly given the financial constraints many face in accessing legal representation.
The Finance Ministry, Zimra, and the Attorney-General opposed the application, arguing that the notice requirement allows for the investigation of claims before litigation and is part of a broader regulatory framework that applies to all claims against the State. They contended that the requirement ensures a fair and efficient resolution of disputes and does not discriminate against individuals.
Justice Mhuri upheld the notice requirement, stating that it is a procedural regulation that does not violate constitutional rights. She concluded that the 60-day notice period serves a legitimate purpose by allowing the State to address issues without litigation and does not impede access to the courts or equal protection under the law. The application was dismissed without an order for costs.
Source - newsday
