High Court Rules Zimplats Owes No Royalties in US$7.1 Million ZIMRA Dispute

ZIMRA

By Staff Reporter | Southerton Business Times

HARARE — The High Court has blocked the Zimbabwe Revenue Authority (ZIMRA) from collecting US$7.1 million in disputed mining royalties from Zimbabwe Platinum Mines (Zimplats), ruling that the law did not allow royalties to be charged on matte and concentrate exports before 2022.

In a judgment with major implications for the mining sector, Justice Rodgers Manyangadze ruled that Zimplats, a subsidiary of South Africa’s Impala Platinum (Implats), is not liable to pay royalties on matte and concentrate exported between June 2018 and December 2021.

ZIMRA had assessed the miner for alleged underpayments amounting to ZWL2.03 billion, arguing that royalties should have been calculated on the gross value of refined platinum, even though the company exported intermediate products. The court rejected that argument, saying the law at the time made a clear distinction between fully refined minerals and mineral-bearing products such as matte and concentrate, and crucially, set no royalty rates for the latter.

“The Finance Act does not provide calculation for mineral-bearing products. It only provides calculation for minerals,” Justice Manyangadze ruled.

He added that matte and concentrate “cannot attract the same royalties as minerals that have gone through the refinery process.”

Why the law mattered

At the centre of the case was how Zimbabwe’s Finance Act was worded before amendments that took effect on January 1, 2022. During the disputed period, the law prescribed royalty rates only for minerals that had already been fully processed. Justice Manyangadze relied heavily on a Supreme Court precedent, ZIMRA v ZIMASCO (SC 79/13), which held that chrome concentrates and ferrochrome could not be taxed before royalty rates were clearly set.

That ruling, he said, was binding.

“In matters of taxation, no tax or royalty can be imposed without clear and express statutory authority,” the Supreme Court held — a principle the judge said was decisive in the Zimplats case.

ZIMRA’s retroactive argument fails

ZIMRA attempted to rely on a 2025 amendment to the Finance Act, which retrospectively expanded the definition of “mineral” to include mineral-bearing products dating back to 2010.

The court dismissed the move, warning that definitions alone do not create a tax obligation.

“As no rate had been fixed for such products at the relevant time, the retrospective amendment cannot impose an obligation that did not previously exist,” the court ruled.

As a result, ZIMRA’s assessed royalty shortfalls and penalties fall away entirely.

Zimplats was represented by Advocate Thabani Mpofu, while Samuel Banda appeared for ZIMRA.

What This Means for Miners

If you exported matte or concentrate before January 2022, this ruling is significant.

The High Court has confirmed that:

• Royalties cannot be charged unless the law clearly sets a rate

• Intermediate products were not taxable under the pre-2022 law

• Retrospective legal changes cannot create new debts

However, miners should note that the law changed in 2022, and mineral-bearing products are now expressly covered.

High Court mining royalties Zimbabwe; ZIMRA loses royalty case; Zimbabwe mining royalties judgment; Zimplats ZIMRA court ruling