Coming up for hearing: on the 12th day of March, 2026.
Reference filed: on the 29th day of August, 2025.
Under Articles: 1,5(3) (a), 6(d) and 7(1) (c),8(1) (c),23(1),27,30,74,75(1),75(4),75(6),76(1),79(b) and (c), 80(1) (f) and 151(1) of the Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community; Articles 1(1),2(4) (a),3(a) and (d),10,11,13,14(1),15(1) and (2) of the Protocol for the Establishment of the East African Custom Union; Articles 2,3,4(1) (2) and (3),5,6,29,32,36(1) (b) and 54 of the Protocol for the Establishment of the East African Common Market; Section 2(1) of the East African Customs Management Act,2004,
Rules: 4 and 25 of the East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure, 2019; Viena Convention on the law of Treaties, 1969; and all enabling provisions of the law;
Subject Matter: the Finance Act.
Summary:
This Reference is brought by the Applicant against the Respondent, the United Republic of Tanzania that enacted into law the Finance Act,2025(Act No.11 of 2025).
The Applicant also based on the ground that the Respondent has relied on the impugned amendment to impose excise duty at the rate of TShs 400 per kilogram on imported matches falling under heading 36.05.
The Respondent levy a triggered solely by the act of importation by exempting Tanzania manufactured safety matches while subjecting Kenyan-manufactured safety matches to the excise duty, the Amendment creates a disguised customs barrier.
The Applicant contends that the EAC has already comprehensively regulated the treatment of the third Country imports of imports from outside the EAC of safety matches, thereby precluding Partner States from enacting unilateral fiscal measures directed at the same tarrif line.
Additionally, the impugned Amendment on its face, is unlawful. It introduces a fiscal barrier on intra-community trade and authorizes discriminatory treatment of goods from Partner States, contrary to the Treaty.
The Reference if further made on the Allegation that the Respondent has continually issued import declaration forms to the Applicant`s consignments of Kenyan-manufactured matches at the border and levied the excise duty of Tanzania 400per kilogram which was not there before the enactment of the impugned Amendment, the same goods were not subject to any such excise duty. The abrupt change in treatment underscores that the impugned Amendment or excise duty was specifically designed and intended to capture intra-EAC Trade.
The Applicant, Match Masters limited, contends that this unequal treatment accords unlawful fiscal protection to Tanzanian producers while imposing an artificial cost burden on Kenya goods, thereby distorting competition, undermining the Applicant`s Market position, and directly contravening the principle of non-discrimination under the Treaty and its Protocols.
Applicant has built a reputation over the past twenty-three (23) years, gained significant consumer goodwill, and invested heavily in production machinery and capacity and capacity expansion.
The reference was made on the grounds that the imposition of the excise duty has rendered exports to Tanzania commercially nonviable, resulting in the suspension of exports to Tanzania, accumulation of unsold inventory, increased warehousing costs, and disruption of cash flow and operational planning. Such abrupt disruption undermines the stability and continuity of cross border trade and signals to investors an unpredictable and arbitrary regime within the EAC.
Furthermore, Applicant states that such excise duty undermines the credibility of the EAC as a stable and predictable trade block investors depend on the application of EAC rules to make cross border investment. Arbitrary measures such as this discourage future investment and damage the EAC`s reputation internationally.
The Applicant further states that the measure aggravates the structural challenges faced by Kenyan manufacturers, including high electricity and logistics costs, heavy domestic taxation, and rising input prices, higher duties applicable on raw materials imported into Kenya via DRS due to recent export promotion levy but the same raw materials are on 0% duty imported under DRS in Tanzania, thereby threatening the sustainability of Kenya`s manufacturing sector and undermining EAC`s industrialisation and export agenda.
The Applicant prays for declarations and Orders that;
The Applicant prays that the fourth schedule to the excise (Management and Tarriff) Act, as amended by section 34(u) of the finance Act,2025 under Heading 36.05, in so far it purports to reclassify or subject goods originating from Partner States of the East African Community to excise duty, is inconsistent with the EAC Treaty, the EAC Custom Union Protocol, the EAC Common Market Protocol, and the EACCMA, and is therefore unlawful, unconstitutional, and null and void.
A declaration that by enacting and / or enforcing the impugned Amendment, the Respondent has acted in violation of the Treaty which accords supremacy to Community law over inconsistent National laws.
A declaration that imposition of excise duty on Kenya-manufactured safety matches under the impugned Amendment contravenes the EAC Treaty.
A declaration that the imposition of excise duty on Kenya manufactured safety matches under the impugned Amendment contravenes Article 75(4) of the EAC Treaty, which prohibits EAC Partner States from introducing new or increased duties or taxes on products traded within the Community.
An order that the injunction and/or prohibition restraining the Respondent, its servants, or agents from levying, collecting, or enforcing excise duty on safety matches manufactured in Kenya or any other EAC Partner State by virtue of the impugned Amendment.
An order compelling the Respondent to refund to the Applicant all sums unlawfully levied and collected pursuant to the impugned Amendment on goods originating from Kenya or any other EAC Partner State, together with interest thereon at court rates from the dates of collection until payment in full.
Any such other or further relief as this honorable Court may deem just and expedient to grant in the circumstances.
Costs of this reference.
This is a document produced by the Registry to assist in understanding forthcoming matters before the Court. It does not bind the Court. For authoritative Decisions, Judgments and general information about the Court please visit https://www.eacj.org Contact: Registrar, East African Court of Justice, P.O. Box 1096 Arusha, Tanzania Tel: +255 27 2506093 Fax: +255 27 27 2509493 Email: eacj@eachq.org