{"issue_text":"Whether applications filed on 22 May 2017 were out of time under Order 33 r 259 (8 weeks from 28 November 2016)","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Applications filed 6 months after termination of action complained of"}
{"issue_text":"Whether Case 3 application was out of time under s 193[12] of Customs Act (3 months from seizure on 2 November 2016)","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Application filed 6 months after seizure"}
{"issue_text":"Whether s 85 of Constitution overrides statutory prescription periods","issue_type":"constitutional","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Applicants argued constitutional right of access to courts"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
Three applicants imported Toyota Fortuner vehicles from South Africa, paid customs duty after value assessments by ZIMRA, and took possession. Months later, ZIMRA conducted post-clearance audits, claimed underpayment, and demanded additional duty plus penalties. The applicants challenged ZIMRA's power to seize/embargo the vehicles and the constitutionality of s 192[1] of the Customs Act.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases