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

The Zimbabwe Revenue Authority (ZRA) conducted an investigation into Unki Mines' operations from June 2018 to December 2021 regarding underpayment of royalties. Unki had computed royalties at 78% and 83% for platinum concentrate and matte respectively, while ZRA demanded recomputation at 100% of gross fair market value. When Unki disputed this, ZRA placed a garnishee on Unki's bank accounts. Unki approached the High Court seeking a declaratur that ZRA's decision was unlawful. The High Court ruled in Unki's favor, holding that Unki should pay 85% for concentrate and 90% for matte, and that garnishing accounts was not a lawful enforcement method. ZRA noted an appeal on 15 August 2025 but failed to serve the Registrar of the High Court with the notice of appeal as required by Rule 44(2) of the Supreme Court Rules. The appeal was deemed abandoned and dismissed. ZRA filed an application for reinstatement under case SC 659/25, which was struck off on 22 September 2025 for being fatally defective. ZRA then filed the present application seeking condonation and reinstatement.

• Whether an appeal that is void ab initio due to failure to serve the Registrar of the court a quo can be reinstated under Rule 76(2) of the Supreme Court Rules, 2025
• Whether failure to serve the notice of appeal on the Registrar as required by Rule 44(2) renders the appeal a nullity
• Whether a single judge sitting in chambers has jurisdiction to determine that an appeal is a nullity
• The distinction between a valid appeal that has been deemed abandoned versus an appeal that is void ab initio

The matter was struck off the roll with no order as to costs.

Failure to serve the notice of appeal on the Registrar of the court a quo as required by Rule 44(2) read with Rule 45(1)(a) of the Supreme Court Rules, 2025 is a mandatory jurisdictional requirement. Non-compliance renders the purported appeal void ab initio - a nullity that never came into legal existence. A nullity cannot be reinstated under Rule 76(2) of the Supreme Court Rules, which only applies to valid appeals that have been deemed abandoned or dismissed for other reasons. Rule 76(2) does not validate or resuscitate a non-existent appeal. Service of the notice of appeal is an integral component of the institution of an appeal, not a mere procedural formality. Where an appeal has not been properly instituted due to failure to serve the Registrar, the only competent remedy is an application for condonation and extension of time within which to note a proper appeal, not an application for reinstatement.

The Court expressed concern about senior counsel's insistence on pursuing a legally untenable position despite clear binding authority to the contrary, noting that it 'baffles the mind why such senior counsel was adamant he had an appeal to reinstate' and that counsel's persistence with the erroneous argument 'was not helpful.' The Court took the unusual step of extensively engaging with counsel during the hearing to bring the relevant authorities and legal principles to his attention, but counsel remained 'adamant and persisted in his erroneous view that the application was properly before the Court, in total disdain of the rules of this Court and precedent.' The Court also clarified that the principle of statutory interpretation requires that provisions should not be construed in a manner that renders them redundant and nugatory. The Court noted that Rule 76 should be given its ordinary grammatical meaning and that what falls for reinstatement is an appeal, not a nullity - emphasizing that 'failure to serve induces still birth to the process and such a nullity cannot be resuscitated.'

This case reinforces the strict requirements for properly noting an appeal in Zimbabwe and clarifies the limited scope of Rule 76(2) of the Supreme Court Rules, 2025. It confirms that service of the notice of appeal on the Registrar of the court a quo is not a mere procedural formality but a jurisdictional requirement, without which no valid appeal comes into existence. The judgment emphasizes the fundamental distinction between: (1) a valid appeal that has been deemed abandoned or dismissed (which can be reinstated under Rule 76(2)); and (2) an appeal that is void ab initio due to non-compliance with mandatory filing and service requirements (which cannot be reinstated and requires a fresh application for condonation and extension of time). The case also clarifies that the introduction of Rule 76 (previously Rule 70) did not alter the established jurisprudence that nullities cannot be reinstated. It serves as a warning to legal practitioners about the consequences of procedural non-compliance and the importance of understanding the difference between curable procedural defects and fundamental nullities.