The court dismissed the appeal filed against the Commissioner General of the Tanzania Revenue Authority (TRA), which challenged the decision of the Tax Revenue Appeals Tribunal (TRAT) Council.
Arusha/Dar. Efforts by Unilever Tea Tanzania Limited to avoid paying over Sh27 billion in taxes have ended after the Court of Appeal confirmed the company must settle the assessment.
The court dismissed the appeal filed against the Commissioner General of the Tanzania Revenue Authority (TRA), which challenged the decision of the Tax Revenue Appeals Tribunal (TRAT) Council.
A three-judge panel, led by Gerald Ndika alongside Dr Lilian Mashaka and Paul Ngwembe, ruled that Unilever’s grounds lacked legal merit.
The ruling, issued on December 12, 2025, and posted on the court’s website, is final.
Previously, the company had appealed to the Tax Revenue Appeals Board (TRAB) against TRA’s Sh27 billion assessment, which followed an audit revealing underreported revenues from exported tea.
Unilever argued that the discrepancies arose from the use of temporary invoices when shipping tea to the Mombasa auction in Kenya, where the actual prices were only determined after the sale.
The Commissioner rejected this defence, prompting appeals to TRAB and then TRAT, both of which upheld the tax.
During the appeal, Unilever’s lawyer, Mr Stephen Axwesso, claimed TRA’s assessment contained errors and requested a re-evaluation of the evidence.
Government lawyers, Carlos Mbingamno and Colman Makoi, opposed the appeal, noting the company had not submitted final invoices and that the court should not re-examine evidence.
The Court of Appeal agreed with TRA, ruling Unilever had failed to provide the required documentary evidence.
Judge Ndika, writing for the panel, said the appeal essentially sought to have the court reassess factual evidence, a process not permitted.
“Appeals from the Council should focus solely on legal matters. Evaluation of evidence is factual and remains within the Council’s domain,” said Judge Ndika.
He added that the company had not shown how the evidence was wrongly evaluated or why the Council’s conclusion was unreasonable.
“We conclude that this appeal lacks merit and is therefore dismissed with costs,” the judge ruled.
