Arreta Chidodo was initially granted relief in default in
February 2022 and the relief was rescinded on November 10 the same year after
both parties were afforded the opportunity to argue their cases in court.
Newsday reports that Chidodo arrived at the Harare
International Airport in October 2020. She was accepted as a returning resident
by the Zimbabwe Immigration Department which indicates such acceptance by an
appropriate stamp on her passport.
On October 23, 2020, Chidodo sought to clear goods which
she had imported from the United Kingdom under immigrant rebate and these were
a Range Rover SP HE TDV6 and an assortment of household goods.
On October 27, 2020, Zimra's Harare Port Station manager
dismissed her application for an immigrant’s rebate accusing her of having
allegedly altered her passport. Zimra argued that such alterations constituted
a violation of section 174(1)(c) of the Customs and Excise Act [Chapter 23:12]
Having made that finding, Zimra demanded payment of customs
duty for the motor vehicle and the household goods and it pointed out that
storage charges were accruing on her goods which had been detained.
Having been pressured by the threat of mounting storage
charges, Chidodo was left with no option but to pay the customs duty levied by
Zimra on the imported goods.
Chidodo did not accept responsibility for the alterations
on her passport and she explained the circumstances under which the alterations
were made in her founding affidavit.
Chidodo argued that because she was accepted as a returning
resident by the Immigration Department she should be given the rebate.
However the judge said the court should determine on
whether or not Chidodo managed to prove that she was resident in the United
Kingdom for a period of not less than two years so as to entitle her to an
immigrant's rebate at law.
"The applicant went on a frolic of her own, totally disregarding the issues before the court. She had gone through two administrative processes where decisions were made in terms of the law governing that functionary. It was a question of disagreeing with the decisions reached and there was nothing unlawful about it.
"Remedies of this nature can only be sought through
reviews in the absence of clear grounds of declaratur being satisfied. The
application before this court is wrongly placed in my view. So much has been
submitted by the applicant but not anywhere close to the appropriate relief
sought.
"I am persuaded by the respondent that this is a
misplaced application and, therefore, it is ordered that after perusing and
hearing counsel. The application be and is hereby dismissed," Justice
Katiyo ruled.
