HARARE – The High Court has ruled that Zimbabwe Platinum Mines (Zimplats), the local unit of South Africa’s Impala Platinum (Implats), is not liable to pay mining royalties on matte and concentrate exported between June 2018 and December 2021, delivering a major blow to the Zimbabwe Revenue Authority (ZIMRA).
Justice Rodgers Manyangadze ruled that the Finance Act, as it stood before amendments that took effect on January 1, 2022, drew a clear legal distinction between “minerals” and “mineral-bearing products”, and did not prescribe royalty rates for intermediate products such as matte and concentrate.
ZIMRA had assessed Zimplats for alleged royalty shortfalls amounting to ZWL2.03 billion, or about US$7.1 million, arguing that royalties should have been calculated on the gross market value of the final refined mineral, without deductions for beneficiation or processing.
But the court rejected that approach, holding that no lawful royalty obligation could arise in the absence of a clearly fixed rate for mineral-bearing products during the period in question.
“The Finance Act… does not provide calculation for mineral-bearing products. It only provides calculation for minerals,” Justice Manyangadze said, adding that matte and concentrate “cannot attract the same royalties as minerals that have gone through the refinery process.”
The judge placed decisive reliance on the Supreme Court ruling in ZIMRA v ZIMASCO (SC 79/13), which held that chrome ore concentrates and ferrochrome were not subject to royalties before January 2022 because no rates had been prescribed for mineral-bearing products.
That decision, the court said, was “on all fours” with the Zimplats dispute.
“In matters of taxation and fiscal obligations, it is a fundamental principle that no tax or royalty can be imposed without clear and express statutory authority,” the Supreme Court held in the ZIMASCO case, a principle Justice Manyangadze said was binding on the High Court.
ZIMRA had sought to rely on a 2025 amendment to the Finance Act that retrospectively expanded the definition of “mineral” to include mineral-bearing products dating back to 2010.
However, the court ruled that definitions alone cannot create a tax obligation, warning that retrospective amendments cannot cure the absence of a charging provision.
“As no rate had been fixed for such products in the Schedule at the relevant time, the retrospective amendment cannot impose an obligation that did not previously exist,” the court said, echoing the Supreme Court’s reasoning.
The court granted Zimplats the main declaratory relief it sought, confirming that it owed no royalties on matte and concentrate sold to Impala Platinum during the disputed period. As a result, ZIMRA’s assessed shortfalls and related penalties fall away.
Zimplats was represented by Advocate Thabani Mpofu, while ZIMRA was represented by Samuel Banda.
