Sat, 22 Oct 2016 10:42:55 +0000 Counsel argued that the Respondent’s irrational and ulterior motives as well as its determination to close down the Appellant were confirmed by a recording which was in the Appellant’s possession and in which the then Minister of Finance, Honourable A.B. Chikwanda, was informing a third party that he had asked the ZRA Commissioner-General to fix the Appellant by using its outstanding tax obligations to the Respondent. The Appellant’s counsel went on to refer to Diplock J’s definition of ‘irrationality’ in the case of Council for Civil Services Unions and Others vs. Minister for the Civil Service² and concluded their arguments around ground One by contending that the Respondent’s decision of refusing to allow the Appellant to liquidate its tax liability in instalments as had been proposed to it was not only plainly irrational and Wednesbury unreasonable, but was also procedurally flawed and clearly in breach of the general principles […]
