MRA Case Laws
Permanent URI for this collectionhttps://elibrary.mra.mw/handle/123456789/121
Browse
10 results
Search Results
Item State vs Malawi Revenue Authority(HIgh court of Malawi, Principal Registry, 2016-07-26) Nyirenda, K.This case is before this Court, through the judicial review machinery within the purview of section 43 of the Constitution and order 53 of the Rules of the SupremeCourt, so that this Court can judicially review the decision by the Respondent "to enforce the collection of non resident tax from Airtel Malawi Limited, which is aresident of Malawi, when MRA has an issue with Zain International BV, which is not resident in Malawi and is not the same as Airtel Malawi Limited" [hereinafter referred to as the "challenged decision".Item Mwasi vs Malawi Revenue Authority(High court of Malawi, Principal Registry, 2017-03-27) Nyirenda, K.This is an application by the Respondent for an order suspending the enforcement of an order contained in my ruling dated 22"! January 2018 allowing amendments to be made to the notice of appeal by adding thereto and removing therefrom certain names (Ruling). The application is brought under O.28, r.48, of the Courts (High Court) (Civil Procedure) Rules [Hereinafter referred to as “CPR”.Item Registerd Trustees of Association of Jehova's Witness of Malawi vs Malawi Revenue Authority(Lilongwe District Registry, 2023-02-15) Chigona, J.The Appellant, being dissatisfied with the Order made by the Special Arbitrator, extending time within which to file an appeal, lodged the present appeal. The facts of the matter are that the Chief Resident Magistrate, sitting as a Special Arbitrator under section 98 of the taxation Act, delivered his judgment on appeal reversing the Respondent’s decision to continue collecting Pay-As-You-Earn (PAYE) from members of the Worldwide Order of Special Full-Time Servants of Jehovah’s Witness,Item NICO Holdings Limited vs Commissioner General, Malawi Revenue Authority(CHIEF RESIDENT MAGISTATE'S COURT, 2015-12-02) LigoweThis is an appeal by NICO Holdings Ltd against the decision of the Commissioner General on an appeal against the decision by the Malawi Revenue Authority requiring NICO Holdings Ltd to pay capital gains tax amounting to K114 689 550 upon disposal of some capital assets and acquisition of replacement assets.Item Malawi Revenue Authority v Justin Likhunya," under Civil Appeal No. 33 of 2017, decided by the Malawi Supreme Court of Appeal on 20 September 2017(Malawi Supreme Court of Appeal, 2019-01-17) MadiseThis case involves an appeal by the Malawi Revenue Authority against Justin Likhunya concerning the seizure of a motor vehicle. The proceedings address procedural issues related to the appeal process, including the appropriate court jurisdiction, the timing of filing the appeal, and the validity of affidavits used in the case. The court scrutinized whether the appeal was filed within the prescribed period and in the correct forum, and whether procedural irregularities could be regularized. Ultimately, the court emphasized the importance of adherence to procedural rules and clarified the proper channels for lodging appeals from the Senior Deputy Registrar. The court dismissed the application to extend the time for filing a new appeal, affirming its views on the procedural requirements [T1-T3].Item Kingstone Lapukeni v Malawi Revenue Authority (IRC Appeal 10 of 2013) (2019 MWHC 85). Malawi High Court.(HIgh court of Malawi, 2019-01-17) Madise, D.This case involves an appeal by Kingstone Lapukeni against the Malawi Revenue Authority (MRA) regarding the legality of his employment termination. The appellant contended that his employment contract was renewed through conduct beyond its expiry in April 2003, supported by evidence of continued salary payments, receipt of draft contract documents, and ongoing work for approximately 22 months. The Industrial Relations Court originally found that there was no valid contract after expiry and that the termination was lawful. However, on appeal, the High Court re-examined the evidence and found that the respondent had, through actions and conduct, accepted the employment extension, thereby establishing a valid contract that was unlawfully terminated. The court reversed the lower decision and ordered the respondent to pay damages for wrongful dismissal. Additionally, the respondent was ordered to pay the costs of theItem Commissioner General of Malawi Revenue Authority v Ibrahim Nathanie ta Mwaipharma (Civil Appeal 2 of 2022)(2022-07-28) Chigona, J.The case concerns the appropriate procedural avenue for challenging the decisions of a special referee under the Malawi Customs and Excise Act. The appellant, Malawi Revenue Authority (the Appellant), filed an appeal against the Special Referee’s reversal of its classification of a product, arguing that the decision involved merits and facts outside the scope of judicial review. Conversely, the respondent contends that the Special Referee’s determination was made under statutory powers, not a judicial function, and therefore should be challenged through judicial review, not appeal. The court must decide whether an appeal or judicial review is the proper procedure, considering that the Special Referee's role is statutory and does not discharge judicial functions, and whether the nature of the decision affects the procedural remedy available. This case underscores the importance of distinguishing between decisions made under statutory powers versus judicial powers in forum selection for dispute resolution.Item Dispute Over Taxation of Management Fees between Chibuku Products Ltd and Malawi Revenue Authority: Application of Double Taxation Agreements(High Court of Malawi, the Revenue Division, 2018-01-16) Chigona, J.This legal case involves Chibuku Products Ltd's dispute with the Malawi Revenue Authority over the taxation of management fees paid to offshore companies. The core issues revolve around which double taxation agreement (DTA) applies—Malawi/UK or Malawi/Netherlands—and whether Malawi has the jurisdiction to tax these management fees. The court examined the residency status of the offshore management companies, the applicability and interpretation of the relevant DTAs, and the control and autonomy of the subsidiaries. Ultimately, the court dismissed the appellant's grounds, upheld the tax authority's assessment, and concluded that Malawi's taxing rights were applicable under the Malawi/UK DTA, while also noting that the offshore companies appeared to be sham entities controlled by their UK parent. The case underscores the importance of treaty interpretation, company residency, and the role of control in cross-border taxation disputes.Item Court's Decision on Amendment of Notice of Appeal in Batawalala v. Malawi Revenue Authority(Malawi High Court, 2022-06-15) Chigona, J.The case pertains to an application by the appellants to amend their Notice of Appeal, specifically seeking to add full particulars to the grounds of appeal. The court examined whether such an amendment was justified and whether the application was meritorious. The court concluded that the amendment was unnecessary and that the application lacked merit, dismissing it with costs to the respondent. The decision emphasizes principles of case management, the importance of timely and proper procedures in appellate practice, and the court’s discretion in managing amendments to legal pleadingsItem Alliance One Tobacco Malawi Limited v Commissioner General for Malawi Revenue Authority (Arbitration Case 1499 of 2015)(the Malawi judiciary, 2017-02-02) LigoweThis case involves a dispute regarding the recognition and taxation of capital gains arising from the disposal of a factory by Alliance One Tobacco Malawi Limited (AOTM). The central issue revolves around whether the capital gain from the asset disposal qualifies for relief under Section 15B of the Malawi Taxation Act, which allows for non-recognition of gains if proceeds are reinvested in a qualifying replacement asset within the stipulated timeframe. The Court examines the definitions of "capital gain" and "disposal," the timing of asset transfer, and the legal interpretations surrounding the reinvestment requirements. It analyzes the correspondence and legitimate expectations created by the Malawi Revenue Authority's (MRA) communications to AOTM concerning partial reinvestment of gains and the validity of the asset transfer agreements. The Court emphasizes strict interpretation of tax legislation, the application of the contra fiscum principle, and the importance of reflecting transactions accurately in the financial records. Ultimately, the case clarifies the legal criteria for capital gain exemption under Section 15B and highlights procedural and substantive considerations in tax compliance and asset transactions.