Contents

The dispute at the border

The question before the Court

What the interim order did

Why the excise measure raised a Treaty question

The Ngaruko test and interim relief

How the case fits earlier trade decisions

What lawyers and traders should do

The limits of this precedent

The dispute at the border

A tax can function as a trade barrier even when it is enacted as an ordinary domestic tax. That is the central practical lesson of Match Masters Limited v Attorney General of the United Republic of Tanzania. A Kenyan manufacturer said Tanzania was charging excise on its safety matches at the border while exempting similar matches made in Tanzania. The East African Court of Justice did not finally decide whether the tax breached the Treaty or trade protocols. It granted a temporary injunction to prevent collection while the substantive reference continued. The decision is therefore important for traders because it shows how urgent regional relief may preserve a market position, but equally important because an interim order is not a final judgment on liability.

The full citation is Match Masters Limited v Attorney General of the United Republic of Tanzania, Application No. 15 of 2025 (arising from Reference No. 39 of 2025), [2026] EACJ 10 (30 April 2026) (First Instance Division). The five-judge panel comprised Principal Judge Yohane Bokobora Masara, Deputy Principal Judge Richard Wejuli, Richard Muhumuza, Gacuko Leonard and Kayembe Ignace Rene Kasanda. The available published decision is a judgment of the Court; no separate dissenting opinion is recorded. The EACJ’s official case page and announcement list 30 April 2026 as the delivery date. The injunction is limited to the applicant’s Kenyan-made safety matches entering Tanzania as intra-Community goods.

Match Masters Limited, a Kenyan manufacturer, filed the main Reference on 29 August 2025. It challenged Tanzania’s Finance Act, 2025, Act No. 11 of 2025, which amended the Excise (Management and Tariff) Act to impose an excise duty of TZS 400 per kilogram on imported safety matches. Tanzania Revenue Authority applied the duty to the applicant’s Kenyan-origin matches at entry, while locally manufactured matches were not subject to the same charge. Match Masters argued that describing Community-origin goods as imported for this tax purpose created a disguised customs barrier and treated like products differently because of origin. The Attorney General of Tanzania opposed the requested relief, and the dispute remained pending on the substantive Treaty questions.

The question before the Court

The immediate legal question in Application No. 15 of 2025 was whether the EACJ should restrain Tanzania Revenue Authority from levying, collecting or enforcing the excise while Reference No. 39 of 2025 was being heard. The Court had to apply Article 39 of the EAC Treaty, which authorises interim orders in a case referred to it, and Rule 84(1) of the EACJ Rules of Procedure, which governs the application. The deeper question in the underlying Reference is whether the duty, as designed and applied, conflicts with the Treaty’s Customs Union and Common Market commitments, including non-discrimination and free movement of goods. The application asked for preservation, not a final declaration that Tanzania had violated the law.

The Court granted an interim injunction restraining the Tanzania Revenue Authority from levying, collecting or enforcing the TZS 400 per kilogram excise duty on the specified Kenyan-manufactured safety matches imported into Tanzania as intra-EAC goods. It concluded that Match Masters had met the Ngaruko test for interim relief: the main Reference raised serious triable issues, the applicant faced threatened harm not adequately remedied by a later award, and the balance of convenience favoured protecting the position pending trial. The Court described the order as preservationist, targeted and reversible. Those words matter. The order maintains the practical value of the case while avoiding a final ruling on the compatibility of the law or the ultimate tax liability.

The Court did not strike down section 34(u) of the Finance Act, 2025, or hold that every excise duty on imported goods is unlawful. It did not determine whether the matches were identical in every relevant respect, finally classify the goods under the Treaty, decide whether the tax was genuinely domestic or customs-like, or resolve Tanzania’s defence. The central merits questions remain for the Reference. Businesses should therefore avoid citing the order as proof that Tanzania has already lost the trade dispute. Its precedential value at this stage is about the legal standard and evidence for interim protection in a plausible regional trade case.

Why the excise measure raised a Treaty question

The EAC Customs Union is designed to remove internal tariffs and similar charges on qualifying intra-Community trade while adopting a common external tariff for goods from outside the region. The Customs Union Protocol also prohibits discrimination between goods originating in Partner States in the application of internal taxes. The EAC Treaty, particularly Article 75, supplies the framework for the Customs Union, while the Common Market Protocol’s Article 6 addresses free movement of goods. An excise tax is not automatically prohibited merely because an imported item is taxed. The key legal inquiry is whether domestic and Community-origin goods are treated comparably, whether the measure is a genuine internal tax, and whether it has been applied in a way that discriminates by origin or disguises a border charge.

The EACJ’s official notice describes the allegation as a TZS 400-per-kilogram charge on imported matches with an exemption for similar Tanzanian-made matches. That distinction is legally more significant than the tax’s name. If a state charges goods from another Partner State while exempting comparable domestic goods, the tax can alter the competitive conditions of cross-border trade. If the tax is genuinely imposed on like goods in the same way regardless of origin, it may stand on a different footing. The merits court will need to consider the statutory wording, tariff classification, product comparability, actual administration and the tax treatment of domestic producers. A dispute is strongest when it addresses each point with evidence instead of treating the phrase ‘excise duty’ as conclusive.

This distinction has been recognized in earlier EAC trade litigation. In British American Tobacco (U) Ltd v Attorney General of Uganda, Reference No. 7 of 2017, the EACJ considered the wrongful reclassification of Ugandan-made cigarettes as imported goods and the imposition of additional excise duty. The Court found that the misclassification contravened Article 75(6) of the Treaty, Articles 1 and 15 of the Customs Union Protocol, and Article 6(1) of the Common Market Protocol. The case illustrates that a Partner State cannot evade regional obligations by applying a domestic tax classification that treats qualifying Community goods as external imports. Match Masters raises a related issue, but its current order is only interlocutory and does not decide the final merits by analogy.

The Ngaruko test and interim relief

Article 39 gives the EACJ power to make interim orders or directions it considers necessary or desirable in a case referred to it. Rule 84(1) requires an application supported by affidavit. In Francis Ngaruko v Attorney General of Burundi, Application No. 3 of 2019, [2022] EACJ 24, the Court authoritatively restated a three-part test: a serious triable issue, a threat of irreparable injury not adequately compensable by damages, and, where the first two limbs leave doubt, the balance of convenience. Match Masters applied that framework, which had already been used in matters including Prof. Peter Anyang’ Nyong’o and Others v Attorney General of Kenya, Reference No. 1 of 2006; BAT Uganda; Kioo Limited v Attorney General of Kenya, Application No. 9 of 2020; and Centre for Law Economic and Policy of East African Integration v Attorney General of Kenya, Application No. 7 of 2024.

The test is designed to preserve the court’s ability to give a meaningful final remedy. ‘Serious triable issue’ is not a final proof of breach; it is a modest threshold requiring a substantial non-frivolous claim within the Court’s jurisdiction. ‘Irreparable harm’ in a commercial setting need not mean that money is never relevant. It asks whether the threatened loss can be adequately measured and repaired later, including loss of customers, market access, goodwill, distribution relationships or commercial viability. The balance of convenience compares the practical consequences of granting or withholding temporary protection. A judge can therefore preserve a business relationship where the State’s fiscal interest can later be addressed if the State prevails, while a trader’s market position might be difficult to reconstruct.

A well-prepared application should separate the interim question from the merits question. Evidence should show the charge assessed or collected, product origin and tariff classification, actual treatment of local comparators, volumes and routes, contracts, customers, price effects, payment demands, and what damage will occur before judgment. The applicant should explain why damages would not adequately restore its position and propose a narrow order that protects only the goods and period in dispute. A broad order that disrupts unrelated revenue collection may undermine the balance of convenience. Match Masters’ targeted relief, confined to Kenyan-made safety matches moving as intra-EAC goods, gives future litigants a practical model for precision.

How the case fits earlier trade decisions

The case belongs to a line of decisions in which the EACJ has protected regional market obligations through both final judgments and interim relief. BAT Uganda supplies a merits precedent against origin-based reclassification and discriminatory excise. Kioo Ltd v Attorney General of Kenya concerned an application for interim relief involving trade restrictions on goods moving within the Community. The Court’s earlier decision in Prof. Peter Anyang’ Nyong’o and Others established the basic use of interim orders to protect the utility of pending proceedings. Ngaruko clarified the three-part test in a reference involving land and Treaty protections. Match Masters brings those procedural principles into a current fiscal dispute at a border.

The comparison to BAT Uganda must remain careful. BAT involved a final determination that the tax misclassification and its application violated Community law; Match Masters concerns an interim injunction in a pending reference. The former gives a substantive legal analogy; the latter is authority about the threshold and shape of temporary relief. The product differs, the taxing statute differs, the domestic exemptions must be assessed on their own terms, and the evidentiary record is not the same. A party arguing Match Masters should explain which proposition is relied on rather than suggest that the Court has already resolved every regional excise challenge.

The Court’s view of Article 32 harmonisation processes also matters for the main reference. The case headnotes identify whether ongoing harmonisation can justify differential tax treatment as an issue. The existence of regional discussions or an unfinished harmonisation agenda does not necessarily suspend specific Treaty and Protocol obligations. But the final court must still interpret the relevant provisions and the state’s justification. For lawyers, the important point is to plead the individual Treaty and Protocol articles, identify any permitted exceptions or harmonisation provisions, and explain why they do or do not apply to the factual tax treatment. A generic appeal to the ‘spirit of integration’ will not answer the statutory and treaty text.

What lawyers and traders should do

For an exporter, the practical lesson is to build a contemporaneous trade file before a dispute arises. Keep proof of where goods were manufactured, certificates of origin, customs entries, excise assessments, product specifications, local comparator data, correspondence with tax authorities, and evidence of commercial impact. If a new levy is announced, obtain the exact statutory text and administrative interpretation quickly. A claim that a product is ‘made in East Africa’ needs support under the applicable rules of origin. The route of importation, tariff code and transaction documents should tell a consistent story. Those records support both the main reference and any urgent application under Article 39.

Counsel for the applicant should identify the cause of action in the main reference and show how each limb of the interim test is satisfied. The affidavit should be based on the company’s records and explain facts through a witness with knowledge of production, exports, customer orders and tax assessments. Counsel should quantify what can be quantified but also identify forms of damage that cannot be repaired by a later refund, such as a lost distribution channel or consumer shift. Proposed orders should avoid deciding the merits prematurely. Counsel for a government should answer the comparison with local goods, present evidence on tax design and administration, identify any legal justification, and give the court a realistic account of public revenue and regulatory consequences. In interlocutory proceedings, credible evidence can decide whether the case remains commercially meaningful.

Traders should also remember that interim relief from the EACJ is not a substitute for every domestic tax procedure. A business may need to object to an assessment, pay or secure disputed tax, pursue a statutory tax appeal, or seek local judicial review depending on the national law and the relief sought. Parallel proceedings should be coordinated so that no deadline is missed and no inconsistent position is taken. The EACJ’s role is to interpret and apply the Treaty; national courts and tax tribunals handle their own statutory mandates. The forum and remedy should be selected based on the legal issue, time limits, jurisdiction and urgency, not only on the fact that goods cross a Partner State border.

The limits of this precedent

The decision is persuasive as an EACJ First Instance ruling on interim relief and an important example of the application of Article 39 and the Ngaruko test to a current free-movement-of-goods dispute. It should not be described as binding on every national court or as a final ruling that Tanzania’s excise legislation is void. Within the EACJ system, a First Instance decision may be appealed to the Appellate Division under the Treaty and Rules. The main Reference also remains distinct from the interim application. As at 15 October 2026, the official case listing shows the order dated 30 April 2026; no later final merits outcome is identified in the case material reviewed for this analysis.

No dissent is reported in the published decision. That absence does not make the order a universal test for all commercial cases; it means the panel’s stated reasoning is the Court’s institutional disposition on the application. A future court can distinguish it if the applicant lacks reliable proof of discrimination, faces only a calculable tax loss, seeks a wider order, or cannot establish EAC origin. Conversely, a trader facing a measure that threatens immediate loss of regional market access can rely on Match Masters as a recent example that temporary relief is available where the three Ngaruko considerations are properly supported.

The decision’s most useful contribution is its practical view of urgent commercial relief. It treats the interim injunction as a tool for keeping a real dispute alive until the merits can be decided. A manufacturer should not have to exit a market before a court determines whether the entry charge is lawful, but the State also retains the right to defend its tax design and recover revenue if it ultimately succeeds. Narrow, reversible relief can balance those interests. The outcome therefore offers a path for businesses to protect access without confusing early preservation with final victory.

The substantive judgment will have to decide questions that the interim order deliberately leaves open: whether the products are like goods, whether the tax creates unequal competitive conditions, whether the goods qualify as Community-origin goods, and whether Tanzania can justify the design under the Treaty and protocols. The parties should place current statutes, protocol text and real market evidence before the Court. Until that decision, Match Masters is a case about the threshold for relief and the preservation of intra-EAC trade, not a final ruling on the tax’s validity.

This case analysis is general legal information for research and public education. It does not replace advice on tax objections, tariff classification, customs documentation, trade remedies or interim injunction applications. The EACJ order is interlocutory and should be read alongside the pending substantive Reference.

Sources Mentioned in This Case Analysis

The authorities discussed are the Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community, Articles 6(d), 7(1)(c), 8(1)(c), 39 and 75; the Protocol on the Establishment of the East African Community Customs Union, particularly Articles 1, 15 and 32; the Protocol on the Establishment of the East African Community Common Market, particularly Articles 3 and 6; the Tanzania Finance Act, 2025, Act No. 11 of 2025, section 34(u); the Excise (Management and Tariff) Act of Tanzania; Match Masters Limited v Attorney General of the United Republic of Tanzania, Application No. 15 of 2025 (arising from Reference No. 39 of 2025), [2026] EACJ 10; Francis Ngaruko v Attorney General of Burundi, Application No. 3 of 2019, [2022] EACJ 24; British American Tobacco (U) Ltd v Attorney General of Uganda, Reference No. 7 of 2017; Kioo Limited v Attorney General of Kenya, Application No. 9 of 2020; Prof. Peter Anyang’ Nyong’o and Others v Attorney General of Kenya, Reference No. 1 of 2006; and Centre for Law Economic and Policy of East African Integration v Attorney General of Kenya, Application No. 7 of 2024.

Suggested Citation

Ronald Serwanga, “Match Masters Case: EAC Trade Duty Relief Explained,” East Africa Legal Insight (15 October 2026).