A former senior executive at Serengeti Breweries Limited has claimed an 18-year employment dispute has ended with a recovery exceeding $1.8 million, following litigation over his dismissal in Tanzania. Dr Hector Sequeira, who was recruited as General Manager and Head of Human Resources at Serengeti Breweries Limited (SBL), maintained that his employment was terminated after he refused to sign employment and financial documents which he believed understated tax liabilities owed to Tanzanian authorities. According to an account of the dispute, Sequeira joined the company in 2008 and subsequently raised concerns about what he alleged was a dual-contract system involving expatriate employees and senior Tanzanian executives. He alleged one version of employment contracts recorded lower salaries in Tanzanian shillings for submission to bodies including the Tanzania Revenue Authority and National Social Security Fund, while another recorded higher salaries in US dollars. The account states that a subsequent Deloitte due-diligence report identified tax issues across a number of areas, including corporate tax, VAT, excise duty, withholding tax and PAYE. It further claims the PAYE issue amounted to approximately $2.4 million annually and had existed between 2001 and 2010. Those allegations concerning the company’s historic tax arrangements are serious and are presented as claims contained in the account of the dispute. They should not be interpreted as independent findings by UKNIP.
Work permit dispute
Sequeira maintained that he refused to sign documents which he believed would undermine Tanzanian tax obligations and that his employment was subsequently terminated. SBL’s position during the employment proceedings included arguments concerning Sequeira’s work permit and the localisation of his position. However, according to the account, proceedings before Tanzania’s Commission for Mediation and Arbitration (CMA) and High Court examined whether there had actually been a decision by the relevant authorities refusing his work permit. The account states that no written decision from either the Labour Commissioner or Minister for Labour refusing the permit was produced. Questions were also raised about the claim that the position was being localised. According to the case account, SBL did not produce evidence showing that the position had been re-advertised locally and Sequeira was subsequently replaced by another foreign national. The High Court was said to have concluded that the termination had been carried out under the “disguise and camouflage” of the work permit issue.
Dispute continued for 18 years
What followed was an exceptionally lengthy employment battle involving proceedings before the CMA and Tanzanian courts. According to Sequeira’s account, the dispute remained at CMA level for 78 months, including 67 months during which proceedings were taking place in Temeke District. The case was eventually transferred to CMA Ilala following intervention by the commission’s headquarters in May 2014. Further proceedings followed as SBL pursued applications connected with appeals and enforcement. Sequeira’s account alleges that some applications were not followed by substantive appeals within prescribed time limits and were subsequently dismissed. He characterises the repeated litigation as a deliberate attempt to delay enforcement. That assertion represents Sequeira’s interpretation of the company’s litigation strategy.
Claim grows to more than $1.8 million
According to the account provided, the dispute finally concluded on August 10, 2026, approximately 18 years after it began. Sequeira says a claim originally worth around $200,000 ultimately resulted in a recovery exceeding $1.8 million plus taxes, following the accumulation of interest during the lengthy proceedings. The case began as an employment dispute but developed into a prolonged legal battle involving the circumstances of Sequeira’s dismissal, his work permit and allegations concerning historic financial practices at SBL. The account describes the August 2026 outcome as final and binding. UKNIP has not independently verified the claimed $1.8 million payment or the wider allegations concerning historic tax practices from the material provided. Diageo and Serengeti Breweries should be given an opportunity to respond to those allegations before publication.
Originally published by UKNIP.
