This is an appeal filed by the appellants against the judgment of the magistrate sitting at Mutasa on 30 April 2019, and, the appellants outlined the grounds of appeal as follows:“GROUNDS OF APPEAL1. The Learned Magistrate grossly erred and misdirected himself on facts and law in concluding, that, the appellants ...
This is an appeal filed by the appellants against the judgment of the magistrate sitting at Mutasa on 30 April 2019, and, the appellants outlined the grounds of appeal as follows:
“GROUNDS OF APPEAL
1. The Learned Magistrate grossly erred and misdirected himself on facts and law in concluding, that, the appellants had been properly cited and that the Notice of Intention to sue was properly served in this matter, and in purporting to condone the improper citation and the purported service mero motu.
2. The Learned Magistrate grossly erred and misdirected himself on facts and law in concluding that the respondents had exhausted domestic remedies prior to approaching the Magistrates Court for relief.
3. The Learned Magistrate grossly erred and misdirected himself on facts and law in concluding that there were no material disputes of facts in the matter.
4. The Learned Magistrate grossly erred and misdirected himself on facts and the law in concluding that respondents did not smuggle the goods/sugar when there was overwhelming evidence which proved that the goods/sugar were smuggled.
5. The Learned Magistrate grossly erred and misdirected himself on facts and the law in ordering the release of the seized sugar in circumstances where the notice of seizure was never challenged in terms of the requisite tax legislation and the respondents failed to discharge the onus upon them by the law to the satisfaction of the appellants.
6. The Learned Magistrate grossly erred and misdirected himself on the law in failing to appreciate that he is, at law, not empowered to determine the validity or review of the Notice of Seizure.”
BACKGROUND FACTS
The first respondent, Ezekiel Masamvu, had his sugar packaged in Portuguese inscribed satchels seized by the first appellant's officers.
Both respondents appeared at Mutasa Magistrates Court for criminal charges of being found with goods not duly accounted for; the State had abandoned the original charge of smuggling in respect of the first respondent; the State also charged the first respondent herein with section 4(1)(b)(ii) as read with section 5 of the Food and Food Standards Act [Chapter 15:04], for false description of goods.
The respondents were acquitted on the charge in terms of the Act; however, the first respondent pleaded guilty to the charge involving false description of goods.
The criminal court at Mutasa ordered the State to immediately release the sugar to the respondents, on condition that the sugar would not be sold in the offensive Portuguese packaging.
The appellants refused to release the sugar.
Having been acquitted of violating the Act, the respondents approached the court a quo for the release of the sugar in terms of section 193(9) of the Customs and Excise Act.
The Magistrates Court made a finding that the appellants release the sugar to the respondents.
It is that order which the appellants seek to be set aside on appeal. The appeal is opposed.
Counsel for the respondents raised points in limine...,.
