The applicant is an association representing licensed tour and safari operators in Zimbabwe. In late 2007, the Zimbabwe Tourism Authority (1st respondent) issued Circular No. ZTF/1/2007 requiring all hunting operators to pay a 2% levy on all trophy fees received from tourist hunters. The applicant's members already charged tourists a 2% levy on all services, facilities and amenities provided, including hunting operations. Additionally, tourists were charged a variable trophy fee depending on the size of the animal to be hunted. If the tourist failed to hunt any animal, this additional amount was refunded; if successful, the trophy belonged to the tourist and the operator retained the fee. The applicant challenged the legality of the Authority's directive requiring the additional 2% levy on trophy fees, arguing that the trophy itself does not constitute a service or facility provided by the operator.
The application was dismissed with costs. The applicant was not entitled to the declaratory order or interdict sought.
A hunting trophy constitutes a "facility" within the meaning of section 35 of the Tourism Act [Chapter 14:20] and the Tourism (Designated Tourist Facilities) (Declaration and Requirements for Registration) Regulations 1996 (SI 106 of 1996). Trophy fees paid by hunting tourists are subject to the 2% levy and surcharge imposed under section 55 of the Tourism Act and the Tourism (Designated Tourist Facilities) (General) Regulations 1996 (SI 107 of 1996). A hunting trophy is an intrinsic and inseparable part of the hunting services and facilities provided by a hunting operator, as the trophy fee is paid to access the trophy through the hunting facilities provided. Components that are intrinsically linked to a designated tourist facility cannot be artificially separated from that facility for the purposes of avoiding statutory levies.
The court made non-binding observations by way of analogy regarding mini-bars in hotel rooms to illustrate the principle that ancillary charges remain part of the overall facility provided. The court noted that the 1st respondent initially raised issues regarding the applicant's locus standi and the propriety of the declaratory order sought, but counsel did not persist with these ancillary issues at the hearing. The court also observed that attempting to separate the trophy from the hunting service would be "tantamount to pure artifice", suggesting a broader principle against artificial separation of integrated service components.
This case establishes important principles regarding the interpretation of "facility" under Zimbabwean tourism legislation. It clarifies the scope of regulatory powers of the Zimbabwe Tourism Authority to impose levies on tourist operations, and establishes that components of a tourism service that are intrinsically linked to the service itself cannot be artificially separated to avoid regulatory levies. The judgment provides guidance on statutory interpretation in the context of administrative and tourism law, particularly regarding the extent to which ancillary charges flowing from the provision of a designated tourist facility remain subject to statutory levies.