Unki Mines (Private) Limited v Zimbabwe Revenue Authority and Stanbic Bank Zimbabwe

The applicant, Unki Mines (Private) Limited, is a mining company operating in Zimbabwe. The first respondent, Zimbabwe Revenue Authority (ZIMRA), issued garnishee notices on 9 September 2022 against the applicant's bank accounts held with the second respondent, Stanbic Bank Zimbabwe, seeking to recover USD 24,076,521.04 in alleged unpaid mining royalties. The dispute arose from differing interpretations between the parties on how mining royalties should be computed under the Mines and Minerals Act read with the Finance Act. The parties had been in correspondence since November 2018 regarding the computation. On 2 June 2022, ZIMRA advised the applicant that payment remained due. On 29 July 2022, the applicant made payment in Zimbabwean dollars, which ZIMRA rejected, insisting on payment in US dollars. The parties held meetings but failed to agree. On 9 September 2022, ZIMRA placed garnishee notices with the applicant's bank. The applicant filed an urgent chamber application on the same day, seeking to interdict ZIMRA from instituting collection measures under the garnishee notices.

• Whether the matter was urgent and properly brought as an urgent chamber application
• Whether the applicant was seeking an incompetent relief by attempting to interdict conduct already completed
• Whether ZIMRA lawfully issued garnishee notices to recover mining royalties without first conducting an assessment
• Whether the proper relief should have been sought against the second respondent (the bank) to suspend implementation of the garnishee notices
• The correct interpretation of provisions relating to computation and recovery of mining royalties under the Mines and Minerals Act and Finance Act

The application was struck off with costs awarded to the respondent (ZIMRA).

1. An interdict is appropriate only when future injury is feared; it cannot be used to restrain conduct that has already been completed. Where wrongful conduct has already occurred, the remedy is to challenge the validity or legality of the action taken and seek to have it set aside, not to seek an interdict. 2. In applications challenging garnishee orders, where the garnishee notices have already been issued to a bank, interim relief must be sought against the bank (garnishee) to suspend implementation of the garnishee order, not against the issuing authority. Without such relief against the bank, the bank remains mandated to comply with the garnishee order. 3. Where an applicant fails to seek the appropriate relief against the proper respondent, rendering it impossible for the court to grant effective relief even if the applicant succeeds on the merits, the application is fatally defective and seeking an incompetent relief. 4. A matter may be urgent where the need to act arises from new prejudicial conduct by a respondent (such as issuing garnishee notices), even if the applicant had prior knowledge of the underlying dispute or obligation. The urgency is determined by when the prejudicial action occurs, not when the underlying dispute arose.

The court observed that the parties were in dispute regarding the correct interpretation of the law on whether ZIMRA was empowered to garnishee bank accounts to recover mining royalties without first conducting an assessment, and whether section 58 of the Income Tax Act applied to recovery of mining royalties. The court noted that this was an issue for determination on the merits and could not be raised as a preliminary point. The court also noted that the applicant's challenge to the lawfulness of ZIMRA's conduct was a matter going to the merits and not properly raised as part of an urgency objection. The court further observed that while the argument regarding the applicant's failure to provide adequate evidence of potential financial ruin was valid, this alone would not render the matter non-urgent if there were issues regarding the lawfulness of the garnishee notices that required urgent interdiction.

This case illustrates important principles regarding the proper formulation of interim relief in urgent applications, particularly in the context of challenging garnishee orders. It establishes that once administrative action (such as issuing garnishee notices) has been completed, the proper remedy is to challenge the validity of those notices and seek their setting aside, rather than seeking to interdict already-completed conduct. The case also demonstrates the critical importance of properly identifying the correct respondent against whom relief should be sought - in garnishee matters, interim relief must be directed at the garnishee (the bank) to prevent implementation of the garnishee order, not just at the authority that issued the order. The judgment provides guidance on the distinction between interdictory relief (which prevents future conduct) and relief challenging the validity of completed administrative action. It also confirms that matters can be urgent even where parties had prior knowledge of obligations, if the urgency arises from new prejudicial action taken by a respondent.