COMMISSIONER GENERAL (TRA) VS. CRJE ESTATE LIMITED. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 370 OF 2021

Abstract

(i) we are of the view that, in as long as it deals with a certificate of incentive under section 17 of the TIA, the authority is relevant in the instant case. Therefore, just like the Tribunal, we hold that, the certificate of incentive in dispute constituted an agreement between the Government and the respondent as an investor. (ii) In any event, the TIC being a statutory institution owned by the Government, whether the requirement under the Public Service Standing Orders was complied with or not, is an administrative and management affair within the Government which would perhaps fall under the domain of administrative law. It cannot, as rightly contended for the respondent, be resolved by having a look at the certificate itself in isolation of other relevant information within the knowledge of the appellant and the TIC itself. We shall therefore, not take the said complaint into our account. (iii) Under section 19 (2) of the TIA, the benefits granted in a certificate of incentive to an investor can neither be amended nor modified during five years of the certificate at the detriment of the investor. The rationale behind is express in the provision. It is "to create predictable investment climate" which is necessary in promoting capital investment. (iv) The benefits introduced under section 20 of the TIA for strategic and major investors were, until 2013, merely additional and not derogatory to those created under section 19(1) and (2) of the TIA. (v) Equally so, they are not, at least, at this particular juncture, in dispute that, a law affecting substantive rights like this, does not operate retrospectively unless it is express in the amendment law, which is not.