Match Masters Limited, East Africa’s largest manufacturer of safety matches, has filed an urgent petition at the East African Court of Justice (EACJ) challenging Tanzania’s newly imposed excise duty on imported matches. The company argues that the levy, introduced under the Finance Act 2025, violates the East African Community (EAC) Treaty by creating discriminatory trade barriers against goods from other EAC partner states.
The Finance Act 2025, effective July 1, 2025, introduced a TZS 400 per kilogram excise duty on imported matches. This measure has led to a price increase of approximately TZS 2,000 per carton of 1,000 matchboxes, significantly impacting household budgets and disrupting regional supply chains. Match Masters, which produces popular brands such as Kasuku, Tinga, and Paka, contends that the levy constitutes a disguised customs barrier, undermining the principles of regional integration and free movement of goods within the EAC.
The company’s Managing Director, Kushal Shah, emphasised the broader implications of the tax. “This levy is not just about one company or one country; it threatens the foundation of regional trade. If all EAC partner states emulate what Tanzania is doing, the biggest losers will be ordinary East Africans, especially low-income families, who will face higher costs for something as basic as lighting a stove or fire.”
Legal experts note that the EAC Treaty prohibits the introduction of new fiscal barriers and discriminatory treatment of goods from partner states. The EACJ has previously intervened in similar cases, such as in 2020 when it halted Kenya’s 25% excise duty on imported glass bottles, citing risks of irreparable harm and violation of the EAC Treaty.
Tanzanian government says the measure is part of a broader fiscal policy aimed at increasing government revenue and promoting local industries. However, it has raised concerns among regional manufacturers, particularly those in East Africa, about potential trade barriers and the impact on regional integration which is the violation of the East African Community Common Market Protocol that allows the free movement of goods and services.
The outcome of this case could set a significant precedent for regional trade practices and the enforcement of the EAC Treaty’s provisions on free movement of goods.
