By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

itom 108(1) of the First schedule to the Customs Tariff Ordinance of Tanzania.Subsequently a sample of the substance was taken to the Government chemistfor testing. As a result of the tests the appellant company’s clearing agent wasinformed that the substance was after all liable to duty under tariff item 105 of theschedule. In a bid by the Commissioner to recever the unpaid duty the appellantcompany, inter alia, pleaded estoppel from claining against the company the dutywhich should have, been paid but for the erroneous exemption. At the trialGerges, C.J. held that although in normal circumstances the doectrtine ofestoppel would apply, there was no stoppel against a statute. He was of the viewthat the commissioner was bound to collect the unpaid duty, because the factthat he had erroneously classified the chemical could not stop him from carryingout his duty whom he discovered the original error . Although the decision was onappeal reversed on another ground, the Court of Appel did not differ withGeorges, C.J. statement of the law relating to stoppel. In a dissenting judgmentlaw, J.A. said (at p.495): “.. I understand (counsel for the appellant) toconcede that the loarned Chief Justice’s conclusions on the issue of stoppel wereright, as in my view they undeoubtedly were “For a brief but more recentpronouncement on this subject; see D.P.P.V Mwita Marwa (1980) TIR 306.Applying these principles to the facts of the instant case; we find that theGovernment served the applicant with Annoxturo “A” purporting to retire him inthe public interest. This step was not only illegal in terms of Art. 151 (2) (f); it wasalso contrary to the provisions of Art; 110 (70) which provide merely for the477