allegation of foul play. In this matter, it seems that the applicants want the respondents to be hauled before the enquiry, when there does not, from what is stated in the papers, any allegation of wrongdoing on their part. From the papers before me, they have afforded every assistance to the liquidators, by making available the documents at their disposal and access also to the Asycuda++ system. That the respondents would have to be subjected to the processes in the circumstances is in my view plainly wrong and hence reinforces the view earlier expressed that the application amounts to an abuse of the provisions in question and the processes of this court as well. [43] What is undeniable is that the respondents want their pound of flesh as it were from the 3rd applicant and it is for the 3rd applicant, in the circumstances, to provide information that will prove that the goods that were imported into the country were actually exported outside the country and outside the common customs area. In the absence of that proof, the 3rd applicant is presumed to owe dues to the Government. To subject the respondents to that enquiry would be the high watermark of unfairness. It is also unclear from the papers what efforts the applicants have taken to trace the Managing Director of the 3rd applicant, who it is alleged, can no longer be traced. [44] In dealing with this issue and the need, as deposed to by the applicants for the holding of the enquiry, the following can be gleaned from the founding affidavit filed in support of this application for the commission of enquiry: Ministry is not willing to re-instate our access to the Asycuda++ system or to ’16.9The re-register us as an export user so as to enable us to verify these transactions. 16.10 As liquidators, we are compelled to investigate these transactions. 16.11 The only option to us is to enquire into these transactions as contemplated by section 423 and 424 of the 2004 Act. I verily believe that a Commission of Enquiry in
allegation of foul play. In this matter, it seems that the applicants want the respondents to be hauled before the enquiry, when there does not, from what is stated in the papers, any allegation of wrongdoing on their part. From the papers before me, they have afforded every assistance to the liquidators, by making available the documents at their disposal and access also to the Asycuda++ system. That the respondents would have to be subjected to the processes in the circumstances is in my view plainly wrong and hence reinforces the view earlier expressed that the application amounts to an abuse of the provisions in question and the processes of this court as well. [43] What is undeniable is that the respondents want their pound of flesh as it were from the 3rd applicant and it is for the 3rd applicant, in the circumstances, to provide information that will prove that the goods that were imported into the country were actually exported outside the country and outside the common customs area. In the absence of that proof, the 3rd applicant is presumed to owe dues to the Government. To subject the respondents to that enquiry would be the high watermark of unfairness. It is also unclear from the papers what efforts the applicants have taken to trace the Managing Director of the 3rd applicant, who it is alleged, can no longer be traced. [44] In dealing with this issue and the need, as deposed to by the applicants for the holding of the enquiry, the following can be gleaned from the founding affidavit filed in support of this application for the commission of enquiry: ’16.9The Ministry is not willing to re-instate our access to the Asycuda++ system or to re-register us as an export user so as to enable us to verify these transactions. 16.10 As liquidators, we are compelled to investigate these transactions. 16.11 The only option to us is to enquire into these transactions as contemplated by section 423 and 424 of the 2004 Act. I verily believe that a Commission of Enquiry in