Gaffar T/A Mapeto Tyres & Mapeto Retread v Malawi Revenue Authority (55 of 2021) [2023] MWSC 19 (26 July 2023)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL SITTING AT BLANTYRE MSCA MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 55 OF 2021 [Being Miscellaneous Civil Cause Number 2 of 2021 at the High Court of Malawi, Revenue Division] BETWEEN FAIZAL ABDUL GAFFAR T/A MAPETO TYRES & MAPETO RETREAD APPLICANT AND MALAWI REVENUE,AUTHORITY RESPONDENT CORAM: HON. JUSTICE L P CHIKOPA SC JA Kamkwasi, J.[Mr.]/Banda, F.[Mr.], of Counsel for the Applicant Msisha, M. SC[Mr.]/Mwangwera,[Mrs.]/Chungu,[Mr.] of Counsel for the Respondent Chintande[Mrs.]/Masiyano[Ms.], Clerks RULING/ORDER We should have delivered this ruling much earlier. We could not due to circumstances beyond our control. Suffice it to say for now that the applicant is appearing inter alia before the High Court Revenue Division on cases to do with alleged noncompliance with tax laws. In the course of dealing with such alleged noncompliance the respondent impounded goods, namely tyres, from the applicant with the further consequence that his business is now effectively shut down. The applicant is of the view that he should be allowed to operate his business. He believes that if he is not allowed to so do irreparable damage will be done to his business. The stock will be unjustifiably damaged to such an extent that even if the respondent were to pay for such damage, the same would be inappropriate. It will be the Malawian tax payer paying when the damage is avoidable. It is for this reason that he prayed that he be granted an injunction,allowing for the release of his stock so that he can continue to trade while the cases against him proceed in the courts below. The application is supported by the affidavit of Ibrahim Shabir General Manager of the business affected by the seizure/embargo and it,is opposed by the respondent. We will not grant the application. To begin with the application does not on its face state the law under which it is brought. Not.even in the skeleton arguments. More than that the application does not provide the context in which it is brought. This is an appellate court. The application therefore should have been brought as an appeal or in furtherance or in the context of one. Not as a stand-alone application. It is accordingly dismissed with costs. Dated at Blantyre this 26th day.of July, 2023. L P CHIKOPA SC JUSTICE OF APPEAL