Wakilii

Match Masters Limited v Attorney General of the United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 15 of 2025; Reference No. 39 of 2025)

East African Court of Justice · [2026] EACJ 10 · 2026 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for interim orders arising from Reference No. 39 of 2025
Decision
Interim injunction granted restraining enforcement of excise duty pending determination of the main Reference

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The Court granted interim orders restraining Tanzania from levying excise duty on the Applicant's Kenyan-manufactured safety matches pending determination of the main Reference. The Court held that the Applicant satisfied all three limbs of the test for interim relief: the Reference raised serious triable issues concerning discriminatory internal taxation and barriers to intra-EAC trade; the Applicant faced irreparable harm including loss of market position, goodwill, and distributor relationships in a price-sensitive market; and the balance of convenience favoured the Applicant, as the Respondent would suffer only temporary revenue deferral while the Applicant risked permanent market displacement.

Outcome

Interim injunction granted restraining enforcement of excise duty pending determination of the main Reference

Facts

Match Masters Limited, a Kenyan manufacturer of safety matches with over 25 years of trade in Tanzania, challenged Tanzania's Finance Act 2025 which imposed an excise levy of Tsh 400 per kilogram on imported safety matches while exempting identical domestically manufactured goods. The Tanzania Revenue Authority applied the levy to the Applicant's Kenyan-origin products at the point of entry. Following the levy's implementation on 1 July 2025, the Applicant experienced zero sales in Tanzania in July 2025, was forced to absorb the full excise duty by reducing wholesale prices to remain competitive, accumulated unsold inventory, and received warnings from distributors threatening to cease stocking its products. The Applicant filed an urgent application for interim orders to stay the application of the excise duty pending determination of the main Reference challenging the measure's compatibility with EAC Treaty obligations on non-discrimination and free movement of goods.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant has satisfied the trifold test for the grant of interim injunctive orders of relief under Article 39 of the Treaty.
  2. Whether the interim injunction orders sought should be granted.

Orders

  • Pending the hearing and final determination of Reference No. 39 of 2025, the Respondent, its agents and the Tanzania Revenue Authority are restrained from levying, collecting, or enforcing the excise duty of Tsh 400 per kilogram imposed by section 34(u) of the Finance Act, No. 11 of 2025 on safety matches (HS Code 3605.00.00) manufactured by the Applicant in Kenya and imported into the United Republic of Tanzania as intra-EAC goods.
  • The order shall take effect forthwith and shall remain in force until Reference No. 39 of 2025 is determined or until further orders of this Court.
  • Costs of this Application shall be in the Cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Interim Relief — Trifold Test for Grant of Interim Orders
An applicant seeking interim orders under Article 39 of the EAC Treaty must satisfy a trifold test: (i) demonstration of a serious triable issue; (ii) threat of irreparable injury not adequately compensable by damages; and (iii) where the first two limbs leave room for doubt, the balance of convenience must favour the applicant.
Interim Relief — Serious Triable Issue — Threshold
The threshold for establishing a serious triable issue is deliberately modest. The reference must disclose a substantial, non-frivolous cause of action within the Court's jurisdiction that possesses substance and reality. The Court does not resolve contested questions of law or fact or determine the ultimate merits at the interlocutory stage.
Discriminatory Taxation — Ongoing Harmonisation as Defence
Ongoing harmonisation of domestic tax policies under Article 32 of the Common Market Protocol may constitute a defence on the merits, but it cannot, at the preliminary stage of an application for interim relief, extinguish the existence of a serious triable question concerning the compatibility of a discriminatory tax measure with non-discrimination and national treatment obligations under the EAC Treaty and Protocols.
Interim Relief — Irreparable Harm — Loss of Market Position and Goodwill
Loss of goodwill, reputation, market position, and business disruption in manufacturing sectors constitutes irreparable harm that is virtually impossible to repair or redeem once lost. In a price-sensitive FMCG market, defensive trading at a loss to preserve market presence demonstrates irreparable harm rather than its absence.
Interim Relief — Burden of Proof on Compensability of Damages
Once a respondent asserts that the injury complained of is capable of being compensated by an award of damages, the onus probandi shifts to that respondent to demonstrate, with concrete evidence or analysis, how the alleged losses can be assessed with reasonable precision and adequately redressed in monetary terms. A bare assertion that damages would suffice is legally insufficient.
Interim Relief — Balance of Convenience — Asymmetry of Harm
The balance of convenience favours granting interim relief where refusal would expose the applicant to the risk of permanent loss of market position, goodwill, and established commercial relationships, while granting relief visits only temporary, quantifiable, and fully recoverable revenue deferral on the respondent State, enforceable through existing statutory mechanisms.
Public Interest — Treaty Compliance and Non-Discrimination
While fiscal sovereignty and public revenue are legitimate State interests, they are constrained by Treaty obligations. Public interest in Treaty compliance, non-discrimination, and the integrity of the Common Market strongly favours the grant of interim relief to prevent violations of Treaty obligations.

Legislation cited (24)

  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 39
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 27
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 30
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 75(4)
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 75(5)
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 75(6)
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure, 2019 Rule 84(1)
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure, 2019 Rule 54
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure, 2019 Rule 133
  • Finance Act, 2025 (Tanzania) s.34(u)
  • Excise (Management and Tariff) Act, Cap. 147 (Tanzania)
  • East African Community Customs Management Act, 2004 s.2(1)
  • Customs Union Protocol Article 15(1)
  • Customs Union Protocol Article 15(2)
  • Customs Union Protocol Article 2(4)
  • Customs Union Protocol Article 3(a)-(d)
  • Customs Union Protocol Article 10
  • Customs Union Protocol Article 13
  • Customs Union Protocol Article 14
  • Common Market Protocol Article 2
  • Common Market Protocol Article 3
  • Common Market Protocol Article 4(1)-(3)
  • Common Market Protocol Article 10-14
  • Common Market Protocol Article 32

Cases cited (6)

  • Francis Ngaruko v Attorney General of Burundi (Application No. 3 of 2019)
  • Prof. Peter Anyang' Nyong'o & 10 Others v Attorney General of Kenya & 14 Others (Reference No. 1 of 2006)
  • British American Tobacco (U) Ltd v Attorney General of Uganda (Reference No. 7 of 2017)
  • Kioo Ltd v Attorney General of Kenya (Application No. 9 of 2020)
  • Centre for Law Economic and Policy of East African Integration (CLEP East Africa) v Attorney General of the Republic of Kenya (Application No. 7 of 2024)
  • Awil & Others v Federal Republic of Somalia & Another (Consolidated Applications Nos. 16 & 17 of 2025)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Match Masters Limited v Attorney General of the United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 15 of 2025; Reference No. 39 of 2025) [2026] EACJ 10 (30 April 2026)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.