The Applicant claims to be the registered owner of a mining claim known as ME3448G SCRAI A, located in Goromonzi district. He states that on 13 January 2025, while conducting operations at the site, the second Respondent arrived with a group of assistants and advised him that he was supposed to vacate the mining site. According to the Applicant, the second Respondent presented a warrant of ejectment, a bond of indemnity, and a letter from the first Respondent’s legal representatives. The Applicant contends that none of these documents referred to or identified him. More
This is an urgent chamber application wherein applicant is seeking that a provisional order be granted on the following terms:
“that the first respondent or any person acting on behalf of first and second respondents be and is hereby interdicted from disputing, stopping or occupying SCRAI A Acturus, without any lawful authority or a Court Order or until the finalization of the appeal presently before the first respondent.” More
The applicant approached this court on an urgent basis seeking the relief for leave to execute judgment pending appeal. In particular, the draft order for the applicant reads as follows:
“1. Application for leave to execute an order pending appeal is hereby granted;
2. The order granted in the applicant’s favour under HC 6560/21 shall be operational pending determination of 1st respondent’s appeal in SC 460/21;
and
3. The 1st respondent shall bear costs of suit on attorney-client scale.”
I will start by giving the summary of the case. On 24 November 2021, the applicant obtained, before this court, provisional... More
This judgment on the merits is a sequel to SDC Ltd v Commissioner General-Zimbabwe Revenue Authority HH 648/18, which dismissed all the preliminary points raised by the appellant in this appeal. The real questions for determination in this appeal are firstly, whether the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development Transfer Pricing Guidelines for Multi-National Enterprises and Tax Administrations (OECD TPGs) were applicable in Zimbabwe during the 2009 to 2012 tax years, secondly whether the respondent Commissioner lawfully applied the general anti-avoidance provision (GAAP), s 98 of the Income Tax Act [Chapter 23:06] against the appellant by imputing royalties for the... More
This judgment deals with ten preliminary points in respect of the applicability of s 98 of the Income Tax Act [Chapter 23:06] general anti-avoidance provisions, GAAP, that were raised by the appellant against the additional assessments issued against the appellant by the respondent on 22 July 2015 for the tax years 2009 to 2012. More
