Zimbabwe Platinum Mines (Private) Limited v Zimbabwe Revenue Authority and Another

The applicant (Zimbabwe Platinum Mines) had a dispute with the first respondent (Zimbabwe Revenue Authority - ZIMRA) dating back to December 2009 regarding the correct rate of royalties payable. The royalty rate was amended from 2.5% to 3.5% in 2009 and to 5% in 2010. The applicant initially complied by paying at 3.5% before unilaterally reverting to the preferred rate of 2.5%. Between 2009 and November 2011, the parties exchanged correspondence disagreeing on the correct royalty rate. The applicant made representations to the Ministry of Finance but no conclusive position was reached. On 10 November 2011, ZIMRA signaled its intention to institute lawful measures to recover outstanding royalties. The applicant did not file any application for a declaratory order. On 17 November 2011, ZIMRA appointed the second respondent (Stanbic Bank) as collector of outstanding royalties under the Income Tax Act, resulting in $7,209,476.00 being garnisheed. Only after this garnishee order was executed did the applicant file an urgent chamber application to challenge the action.

• Whether the matter qualified as urgent for purposes of urgent chamber application procedures
• Whether urgency can be established when an applicant has deliberately abstained from taking action for an extended period despite knowing of the issues requiring resolution
• Whether the applicant's delay of approximately two years in seeking legal remedy constituted self-created urgency

The court declined to treat the matter on an urgent basis. The applicant was ordered to pay costs.

Urgency which stems from a deliberate or careless abstention from action until the deadline draws near is not the type of urgency contemplated by the rules of court. Where an applicant has knowledge of a legal issue requiring resolution and has had ample time (in this case approximately two and a half years) to seek appropriate relief but fails to act timeously, and only seeks urgent relief after adverse consequences have materialized, the court will decline to treat the matter as urgent on the basis that the urgency is self-created. An applicant cannot watch a situation develop to its detriment without taking timeous corrective action and then claim urgency when enforcement action is taken.

The court observed that the applicant's approach throughout the matter had been casual, noting that it had complied with payment at the disputed rate before unilaterally reverting to its preferred rate, and that no substantive application for a declaratory order had been filed despite having the opportunity to do so from 2009 to the date of hearing. The court expressed doubt that such an application had been filed even by the time of writing the judgment. The court also noted that the applicant could not reasonably claim to be surprised by the garnishee order given that it knew that under existing legislation, if revenue was not remitted in full, ZIMRA would invoke legal process to recover the same.

This case reinforces the principle in Zimbabwean law (which shares common law principles with South African law) that urgent applications will not be entertained where the urgency has been self-created through an applicant's deliberate or careless failure to act timeously. It emphasizes that litigants cannot sleep on their rights for extended periods and then seek urgent relief only when adverse consequences materialize. The case illustrates the court's unwillingness to indulge parties who fail to take proactive steps to protect their interests despite having ample opportunity and knowledge of impending legal action. This approach is consistent with the South African jurisprudence on urgent applications which similarly requires genuine urgency and not self-created urgency.