constitutional challengecustoms and exciseprescription periodinterim relief
legislation
Statutes Cited
Customs and Excise Act
Constitution of Zimbabwe
State Liabilities Act
Customs and Excise Act
ai analysis
Case Summary
Key Issues
{"issue_text":"Whether applicant can seek constitutional invalidity and interim relief in single application","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Application combines constitutional challenge with interim interdict"}
{"issue_text":"Whether notice under State Liabilities Act is required for constitutional challenge","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Applicant gave notice for recovery claim but not specifically for constitutional challenge"}
{"issue_text":"Whether interim relief is competent in constitutional application brought by court application","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Applicant seeks interim interdict in constitutional challenge brought by ordinary application"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
The applicant, a transport company, challenges the constitutional validity of sections 193(12) and (13) of the Customs and Excise Act which impose a 3-month prescription period for challenging customs seizures. Its truck and trailer were seized after fuel was found to have been replaced with water, and it seeks to prevent disposal of the vehicles pending constitutional determination.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases