What are the opening hours?

Monday 08:00 - 16:30 Tuesday 08:00 - 16:30 Wednesday 08:00 - 16:30 Thursday 08:00 - 16:30 Friday 08:00 - 16:30

Zimbabwe Legal Information Institute, 16 Oxford Road, Avondale, Harare (2025)

28/04/2025

Greening through Legislation

ZimLII publishes legislation from the Republic of Zimbabwe here: https://zimlii.org/legislation/

In Customs and Excise (General) (Amendment) Regulations 2025 (No 124) Repeal of COVID-19 Rebate published here: eng@2025-04-15," rel="ugc" target="_blank">https://zimlii.org/akn/zw/act/si/2025/35/eng@2025-04-15,
The section 144X, which provided a rebate of duty on essential goods imported for the fight against COVID-19, is repealed.

New Rebate for Solar Powered Charging Stations:
A new section 144X is introduced, providing a rebate of duty on equipment and machinery used for setting up solar-powered charging stations imported by approved operators.

The Zimbabwe Energy Regulatory Authority (ZERA) will approve and license operators for this purpose.

The rebate applies to specific items such as solar panels, inverters, EV chargers, battery storage systems, charging control units, mounting structures, electrical wiring components, monitoring systems, and grounding equipment.

Implications for Zimbabwean Citizens
Economic Shift Post-Pandemic:
The removal of the COVID-19 rebate signifies a move away from pandemic-related economic measures. This indicates that the government is transitioning from emergency responses to more sustainable economic policies.

Promotion of Renewable Energy:
The introduction of a rebate for solar-powered charging stations is a significant step towards promoting renewable energy and sustainable infrastructure. This could lead to increased investment in solar energy projects, potentially reducing reliance on non-renewable energy sources and fostering a greener economy.
Citizens may benefit from improved access to electric vehicle charging infrastructure, encouraging the adoption of electric vehicles and contributing to environmental conservation efforts.
Economic Opportunities:

The new regulations create economic opportunities for businesses involved in the importation and installation of solar-powered charging stations. This could lead to job creation and stimulate economic growth in the renewable energy sector.
Overall, these legislative changes reflect the government's focus on transitioning towards sustainable energy solutions and adjusting economic policies post-pandemic.

Like, follow and share similar content published for open access on the ZimLII website.

23/04/2025

The Court's Evolving Approach to sentencing First-Time Offenders, including Sexual Offenders

In S v Bhobho (148 of 2025) 2025 ZWHHC 148 (3 March 2025)

Key Issues at Law: The key legal issue in this case was the appropriateness of the custodial sentence imposed on Anesu Bhobho for having consensual s*xual in*******se with a minor. The court had to reassess whether the initial sentence of 24 months imprisonment, with 12 months suspended, was justified given the mitigating factors and the trend towards non-custodial sentences for first-time offenders .

Order Given: The court set aside the remaining 12-month prison term and substituted it with 420 hours of community service. The court emphasized the importance of considering rehabilitation and community integration for first-time offenders, especially when the offense did not result in permanent harm to the victim. The court noted that non-custodial sentences help decongest prisons and provide offenders with a second chance.

Advice for Citizens: This case illustrates the judiciary's evolving approach towards sentencing, particularly for first-time offenders. Citizens should understand that the courts are increasingly favoring rehabilitation over incarceration, especially in cases involving consensual acts and mitigating circumstances. It also highlights the importance of presenting all relevant factors during sentencing to ensure a fair and balanced outcome.

What is your take on this emotive issue?

Read, download and share the full-text judgment published for open access on the ZimLII website here: eng@2025-03-03" rel="ugc" target="_blank">https://zimlii.org/akn/zw/judgment/zwhhc/2025/148/eng@2025-03-03

Open Access to the Law - because ignorance will not excuse you from the penalty

23/04/2025

Evidence!

In Tigere v Warren Park 5 Council Primary School Development Committee (98 of 2025) 2025 ZWHHC 98 (18 February 2025)

Key Issues at Law: The primary legal issue in this case was whether the Warren Park 5 Council Primary School Development Committee was in contempt of court for failing to comply with a court order to provide specific documents to Tonderai Tigere. Tigere had previously sought these documents to challenge a disciplinary decision and seek reinstatement of employment. The court had to determine if the respondent's failure to provide all requested documents constituted willful and malicious disobedience of the court order.

Order Given: The court found that the respondent had not willfully disobeyed the court order, as the missing audio recording was unavailable due to the time lapse between the hearing and the request. The court noted that the respondent had provided most of the requested documents and that the applicant had conceded that the documents received were sufficient to proceed with his case. Consequently, the application for contempt of court was dismissed, and the parties agreed to proceed with the matter in the Labour Court.

Advice for Citizens: This case underscores the importance of complying with court orders and the necessity of providing all requested documents in legal disputes. Citizens should ensure they maintain accurate records and respond promptly to legal requests to avoid allegations of contempt. Additionally, it highlights the need for clear communication and cooperation between parties to resolve disputes efficiently and avoid unnecessary litigation.

Read, download and share the full-text judgment published to the ZimLII website here for open access: eng@2025-02-18" rel="ugc" target="_blank">https://zimlii.org/akn/zw/judgment/zwhhc/2025/98/eng@2025-02-18

ZimLII
A member of the Free Access to Law Movement

25/03/2025

Res Judicata and Mootness

You cannot keep arguing the same case once it is settled.

Madanire and Another v Mugiya and 3 Others (162 of 2025) 2025 ZWHHC 162 (12 March 2025)

In summary, Tawira Madanire and Chiute Fadzai Madanire sought a declaration of ownership and ejectment of Norman Mugiya from a property they claimed to have purchased from the second and third defendants. The first and second defendants raised a point of law that the matter was res judicata due to a prior court order compelling the transfer of the property to Mugiya. The court had to determine whether the matter was res judicata or moot. The court found that the prior judgment was a default judgment and not a final judgment on the merits. However, the court upheld the point of mootness, stating that the extant court order compelling transfer of the property to Mugiya rendered the matter academic.

Final Order and Judgment - The court dismissed the matter on the principle of mootness, with no order as to costs.

As a guideline, Citizens should understand the concept of res judicata and mootness in legal proceedings. It is important to recognize that a default judgment is not final and can be challenged. Additionally, when there is an extant court order affecting property rights, it is crucial to address that order through appropriate legal channels before pursuing further claims.

Read, download and share the full-text judgment published on the ZimLII website for open access here: eng@2025-03-12" rel="ugc" target="_blank">https://zimlii.org/akn/zw/judgment/zwhhc/2025/162/eng@2025-03-12

ZimLII is a member of the Free Access to Law Movement

Like and Follow us for more similar content.

25/03/2025

Property Rights

Did you know that your asset left on someone else's property can be legally charged for storage costs?

In Gao v Baoquang and 2 Others (160 of 2025) 2025 ZWHHC 160 (12 March 2025), Mhuri J presiding,

Zhiqiang Gao sought a mandatory interdict to compel the respondents to release his Daewoo Excavator, which was being held as a lien for storage costs. Gao argued that he had settled the taxed costs and that the respondents had no right to retain the excavator for storage costs. The respondents contended that they had a right to retain the excavator until the storage costs were paid. The court examined the requirements for a final interdict and found that Gao had established a clear right to the excavator and that the respondents' retention of the excavator was unreasonable and unjustified.

The court granted the application for a compelling order, prohibiting the respondents from denying Gao access to the excavator and ordering its release. The respondents were also ordered to pay costs on a higher scale.

General Legal Guidance:
Ordinary citizens should be aware of their rights regarding property and the conditions under which a lien can be exercised. It is essential to understand the legal remedies available, such as interdicts, and to ensure that any claims for costs or retention are justified and legally enforceable.

Read, download and share the full-text judgment published for open access on the ZimLII website here: eng@2025-03-12" rel="ugc" target="_blank">https://zimlii.org/akn/zw/judgment/zwhhc/2025/160/eng@2025-03-12

Ignorance of the Law will not excuse you from the penalty!

21/03/2025

The International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, observed on 21 March every year, marks a moment to reflect on the ongoing fight against systemic racism, racial discrimination and exclusion.

ZimLII endorses this messaging from United Nations Human Rights:

Racism must never shape policies, institutions, or everyday decisions. To dismantle it, those affected must be able to challenge discrimination wherever it appears, making equality a reality.
⚖️ Justice grows when we take action, push for fair laws, and refuse to stay silent. A world built on dignity and respect is possible when we commit to it together.

In Zimbabwe, key legislation aligned to this is the Prevention of Discrimination Act Chapter 8:16, published here for open access: eng@2016-12-31" rel="ugc" target="_blank">https://zimlii.org/akn/zw/act/1998/19/eng@2016-12-31

Did you know the Law provides as follows:
7. Right of aggrieved person to damages
(1) Subject to section ten, any person who, on the grounds of race, tribe, place of origin, national or ethnic origin, political opinions, colour, creed or gender, is—
(a) refused admission to any public premises or any part thereof; or
(b)refused the supply or provision of any commodity, service or facility; or
(c)denied a right to purchase, hire or otherwise acquire any immovable property; or
(d) refused a loan or other financial assistance; or
(e)discriminated against in regard to—
(i)his admission to any public premises or part thereof; or
(ii)the supply or provision of any commodity, service or facility to him; or
(iii) the sale, lease or other disposal of any immovable property to him; or
(iv)the granting of a loan or other financial assistance to him;
shall be deemed to have suffered an injuria and shall have the right to recover damages therefor in any court of competent jurisdiction.

Image Credit: United Nations Human Rights ICERD60

20/03/2025

Spoliation application as an urgent Interim Order?

In Swimming Pool Underwater Repair (Private) Limited v Rushwaya and Another (159 of 2025) 2025 ZWHHC 159 (12 March 2025)
Swimming Pool Underwater Repair (Private) Limited approached the court with an urgent chamber application for a spoliation order, claiming that the respondents, Jameson Rushwaya and Annie Rushwaya, had unlawfully dispossessed them of Glencairn Mine.

The applicant argued that they had enjoyed peaceful possession of the mine since April 2016 and that the respondents' actions were tantamount to taking the law into their own hands without submitting to the jurisdiction of the courts. The respondents opposed the application, raising several preliminary points, including procedural defects, material non-disclosure, and the incompetence of the relief sought. They argued that the applicant had no cause of action and that the dispute over the mine's ownership and control had not been resolved.

The final order in this case dismissed the application by Swimming Pool Underwater Repair (Private) Limited. The court found that the application was procedurally defective and wrong in law, as spoliation orders cannot be granted on a provisional basis. Consequently, the applicant was ordered to bear the respondents' costs of suit.

Read, download and share the full-text judgment published for open access on the ZimLII website here: eng@2025-03-12" rel="ugc" target="_blank">https://zimlii.org/akn/zw/judgment/zwhhc/2025/159/eng@2025-03-12 for the full context including;
- Whether the respondents’ notice of opposition was properly before the court
- Whether the applicants legal representation was valid at the time of the application
- Whether the application was properly before the court

ZimLII is an open legal library primarily publishing Zimbabwean caselaw, legislation, journal articles and related materials.

Like, Follow, Bookmark us for more similar content.

18/03/2025

Sexual Abuse and Sexual Exploitation of Children

Two key points from this new article from the prolific legal writer, Professor G Feltoe are:

1. Constitutional Provisions and Legal Framework:
The Constitution provides robust protections for children under 18 against s*xual exploitation and abuse. It mandates that the best interests of the child are paramount in all matters and requires the State to adopt reasonable policies to protect children from abuse.

The document emphasizes the need for stern measures to combat s*xual abuse and exploitation, including rigorous investigation, prosecution, and severe penalties for offenders. It also highlights the importance of expanding DNA testing capabilities and establishing a register of convicted s*x offenders for monitoring.

2. Criminalization and Consent:
The document discusses various non-consensual s*xual crimes such as r**e, aggravated indecent assault, and indecent assault, detailing the circumstances under which consent is considered absent or invalidated.

It also addresses the issue of consensual s*xual activity with children, proposing amendments to the law to protect children up to the age of 18 and suggesting exemptions for non-exploitative s*xual activity between minors. The document advocates for counseling and education to discourage early s*xual activity among children.

Share your views on these progressive proposals to strengthen child protection laws.

Read, bookmark and share this article, published for open access on the ZimLII website here: eng@2025-03-18" rel="ugc" target="_blank">https://zimlii.org/akn/zw/doc/journal-article/2025-03-18/s*xual-abuse-and-s*xual-exploitation-of-children/eng@2025-03-18

Are you a legal writer? Get in touch with ZimLII and take advantage of this widely read platform to publish.

Save the Children in Zimbabwe
Legal Resources Foundation Zimbabwe- LRF Zimbabwe

Image credit

17/03/2025

Wills, Inheritance and the Law

In Chitando v Mandingo (In her capacity as Executrix Dative of Estate Late Kumbirayi Mayika Kangai) and 9 Others (48 of 2025) [2025] ZWHHC 48 (31 January 2025), Muchawa J provides a treatise on Maintenance, Wills, Inheritance and the Law in Zimbabwe.

In summary, Kumbirai Manyika Kangai, passed away on 24 August 2013. He died testate and his estate was registered under reference DR 1405/13. On 13 May 2014, the plaintiff lodged a claim for maintenance against the deceased estate in terms of section 3 of the Deceased Persons Family Maintenance Act [Chapter 6:03]. The grounds for her claim were that though she was the first widow of the deceased, she had been omitted in the list of beneficiaries in the deceased’s Last Will and Testament. As a widow, she averred that the estate has an obligation to maintain her.

Here are the five key learning points from the judgment:
1. Validity of Customary Marriages:
The court confirmed that a customary marriage is valid and recognized if it follows the traditional rites, such as the payment of "gupuro" (divorce token) to dissolve the union. In this case, the plaintiff, Esther Chitando, claimed to have been customarily married to the deceased, Kumbirai Manyika Kangai, since 1957. The court found that the customary marriage was valid and had not been dissolved.
2. Admissibility of Marriage Certificates:
The court emphasized the importance of proper documentation and the admissibility of marriage certificates. The plaintiff's marriage certificate was challenged for its authenticity, but the court found it inadmissible as it was not signed by a public official in custody of the original document. This highlights the need for proper and verifiable documentation in legal matters.
3. Maintenance Claims by Surviving Spouses:
The court upheld the right of a surviving spouse to claim maintenance from the deceased's estate. The plaintiff, as a surviving spouse, was entitled to maintenance despite living separately from the deceased. The court considered factors such as the plaintiff's age, health condition, and the standard of living during the deceased's lifetime to determine the maintenance amount.
4. Testamentary Freedom and Dependants' Rights:
The judgment balanced the deceased's testamentary freedom with the rights of dependants. While the deceased's will did not include the plaintiff, the court recognized her right to maintenance under the Deceased Persons Family Maintenance Act. This act imposes a posthumous duty to support dependants, even if they are not mentioned in the will.
5. Burden of Proof in Civil Proceedings:
The court reiterated that the burden of proof lies with the party making a positive allegation. In this case, the defendants claimed that the customary marriage was dissolved, but they failed to provide sufficient evidence. The court found that the defendants did not meet the burden of proof to establish the dissolution of the marriage.

Read, download and share the full-text judgment published on the ZimLII website for open access here: eng@2025-01-31" rel="ugc" target="_blank">https://zimlii.org/akn/zw/judgment/zwhhc/2025/48/eng@2025-01-31

www.zimlii.org
Because Ignorantia juris non excusat

14/03/2025

In Chandigere v Cargo Carries International Haulage (Private) Limited (14 of 2025) 2025 ZWSC 14 (25 February 2025)

This case involves Tiko Chandigere appealing against a Labour Court judgment that dismissed his application for review of his dismissal from employment. The allegations were that between 3 May 2021 and 5 July 2021, while driving on duty, the appellant lost 528 litres of diesel due to gross negligent driving. The appellant failed to give a reasonable explanation of how such a shortage came about. In addition, the appellant had been previously reprimanded for diesel shortages emanating from gross negligence.
During the disciplinary hearing, the appellant denied the allegations levelled against him. He contended that the company truck he was driving whilst on duty had not been taken for consumption tests as per the company procedures.
After conducting the disciplinary hearing, the disciplinary committee unanimously found the appellant guilty of gross negligence. In mitigation, the appellant prayed for the disciplinary committee to consider his long service of 28 years, his age and the fact that he was being charged with an offence for the first time.
In deciding on the appropriate penalty, the disciplinary committee, which comprised two employer’s representatives and two workers representatives, failed to reach consensus. One half recommended dismissal whilst the other half recommended a final warning.
As the chairperson was not eligible to vote, a deadlock was declared.
The Disciplinary Committee therefore referred the matter to the Director for an appropriate penalty and this was done in terms of a clause of the Code.
The Director found that the offence committed by the appellant was grave and warranted a dismissal. The Director further found that all the mitigatory factors presented by the appellant were outweighed by the fact that his misconduct went to the root of the employment contract.

The Supreme Court upheld the Labour Court's decision, stating that the employer has the right to choose the charge to prefer against an employee and that the referral to the Director was in accordance with the applicable Code of Conduct.

To avoid similar legal pitfalls, employees should ensure they understand the terms of their employment and the procedures for disciplinary actions. One ought to know the relevant and active policies and legislation that determine decisions.

Read, download and share the full-text judgment shared for open access on the ZimLII website here: eng@2025-02-25" rel="ugc" target="_blank">https://zimlii.org/akn/zw/judgment/zwsc/2025/14/eng@2025-02-25

Follow us for more similar content.

14/03/2025

Duped?

In Munatsi and Another v Matukutire and Another (16 of 2025) [2023] ZWSC 16 (23 October 2023)
Uchena JA, Chitakunye JA, Kudya JA write:

"In this case we are of the view that, the issue is on whether the first respondent used deception to cancel the agreement of sale. The appellants’ allegation is that the first respondent personally received the deposit but did not personally issue the receipt having instructed his wife to issue the receipt to the appellants. On installments the appellants said the first respondent was approached for purposes of payment but he would divert the appellant’s agent to his wife to whom payments were eventually made. The appellants further alleged there are other purchasers under the first respondent’s Housing Scheme, who were duped in this manner. They gave details of cases in the court a quo of persons who were subjected to the same modus operandi."

In summary, this case involves Shadreck Munatsi and Faith Munatsi appealing against a High Court judgment that confirmed the cancellation of a sale agreement for a property. The appellants had entered into a sale agreement with John Tranos Matukutire for a stand in Harare, but the agreement was canceled by Matukutire, alleging non-payment of the deposit and installments. The appellants argued that they had paid the deposit and installments to Matukutire's wife, who was authorized to receive payments on his behalf.

The Supreme Court found that there were disputes of fact that warranted a trial to determine whether Matukutire had authorized his wife to receive payments. The court referred the matter to trial, allowing for further evidence and cross-examination.

To avoid similar legal pitfalls, citizens should ensure that all payments and agreements are documented and made directly to the authorized party as specified in the contract.

Read, download and share the full-text judgment published for open access here: eng@2023-10-23" rel="ugc" target="_blank">https://zimlii.org/akn/zw/judgment/zwsc/2023/16/eng@2023-10-23

Click the Like button and follow us for more content.

ZimLII is a member of the Free Access to Law Movement

14/03/2025

Finality and Grounds to appeal and Condonation for late filing..

In Biti v AGUR Investments and 3 Others (18 of 2025) 2025 ZWSC 18 (5 March 2025), in the SUPREME COURT OF ZIMBABWE
GWAUNZA DCJ, BHUNU JA & CHATUKUTA JA.

This case involves Tendai Laxton Biti appealing against a High Court judgment that dismissed his application for condonation of failure to file for rescission of a default judgment within the permitted time. The background of the case is that AGUR Investments and Tatiana Aleshina sued Biti for defamation over comments he made on Twitter in December 2020. Biti raised exceptions and special pleas, which were dismissed by the High Court. He then sought leave to appeal, which was dismissed due to procedural issues involving his legal representation.

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, stating that the delay in filing the application for condonation was inordinate and the explanation for the delay was unsatisfactory. The court also found that Biti did not have prospects of success on appeal as the tweets did not specifically reference the respondents and the first respondent, being a company, could not sue for defamation.

To avoid similar legal pitfalls, citizens should ensure timely filing of legal documents and proper representation in court proceedings.

Read, download and share the full-text judgment, published on the ZimLII website for open access here: eng@2025-03-05" rel="ugc" target="_blank">https://zimlii.org/akn/zw/judgment/zwsc/2025/18/eng@2025-03-05

ZimLII is a Member of the Free Access to Law Movement

Follow us for more content.

12/03/2025

Judgment Debt, Property Attachment and Jointly-owned Assets when the Sheriff comes knocking..

Sheriff of Zimbabwe v Moyo and Another (102 of 2025) 2025 ZWHHC 102 (19 February 2025)

Summary: The Sheriff of Zimbabwe filed an interpleader application regarding the attachment of immovable property. The claimant, Chido Moyo, argued that the property was awarded to her and her sister in a previous divorce proceeding and should not be executable. The court ruled in favor of the claimant, declaring the property not executable and protecting her rights.

Takuva J pens the following"
"In my view there are special circumstances why the property under judicial attachment must be declared not executable. In BRUCE NO v JOSIAH PARKES & SONS LTD 1971 (1) RLR 154 it was stated that, “In my view, in proceedings of this nature, the Claimant must set out the facts and allegations which constitute proof of ownership.” In casu, it is not in dispute that Claimant was awarded rights through a court order over the piece of land being the subject matter. Her rights were created by the court. Claimant acted promptly to protect her rights and interest. It is conceded that transfer has not been effected for reasons outlined in Claimant’s Opposing Affidavit.
Further, the property awarded is an entitlement and her only piece of property that reminds her about her family. The order in HC 3244/94 is extant despite having had superannuated. The fact that it is old does not neutralize or make it non-existent. It can be revived and its pronouncements are enforceable. The balance of convenience favours the Claimant in that despite her rights being personal rights, the extent and breath of these rights should be weighed against the circumstances underlying it. The value to be recovered from the sale of the 50% shares or however way is not proportionate to the sentimental value to be lost by Claimant and every member of the family should the property be lost.
Also I find that the allegation of collusion is misplaced in that collusion should not just be loosely taken because there is a relationship between Claimant and Judgment Debtor. Can it be said judgement debtor divorced in anticipation of this scenario? Can Claimant’s failure to cause transfer be interpreted to mean she anticipated this or that the order was somehow cooked up in order to evade anything? The approach I take is not to be swayed into stereotype and preconceived notions which are baseless – See Sheriff of the High Court v Munyaradzi Majoni & Ors HH 689/15."

Guideline: Citizens should ensure that property rights awarded in divorce proceedings are properly transferred and registered to avoid disputes and potential ex*****on.

Read, download and share the full-text judgment on the ZimLII website here:
eng@2025-02-19" rel="ugc" target="_blank">https://www.zimlii.org/akn/zw/judgment/zwhhc/2025/102/eng@2025-02-19

12/03/2025

Tax Obligations and Corporate Rescue

In Pacific Ci******es Company (Pvt) Ltd (under corporate rescue proceedings) v The Zimbabwe Revenue Authority and Another (99 of 2025) 2025 ZWHHC 99 (18 February 2025) MANDAZA J writes:
" "In JVJ Logistics (Pty) Ltd v Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd and Ors 2016 (6) SA 448 (KZD) at p. 448 the court dealt with the moratorium on business rescue proceedings. The court held that:
“During business rescue proceedings, no legal proceeding, including enforcement action, against the company, or in relation to any property belonging to the company, or lawfully in its possession, may be commenced or proceeded with in any forum …”
In addition, in Metallon Gold Zimbabwe (Pvt) Ltd & Ors v Shatirwa Investments (Pvt) Ltd SC-107-21 at p. 16 MALABA CJ stated as follows:
“During a company’s corporate rescue, the company can only dispose of its assets in circumstances prescribed in s 127(1) of the Insolvency Act. In respect of contracts of employment, the general rule is that employees who were employed by the company before the commencement of corporate rescue proceedings will remain employed with no change to their terms and conditions of employment. However, s 129(1)(a) (i)-(ii) of the Insolvency Act provides exceptions to this rule.”
While business rescue can afford companies a temporary moratorium on legal proceedings, including creditor actions, the question of tax exemptions is not straightforward. The company may still be liable for taxes incurred prior to the commencement of rescue proceedings unless explicitly exempted by the governing legal framework. The tax authorities may still assert claims, but the application of these claims could be postponed or subject to negotiation during the rescue process, particularly if it impedes the business’s ability to reorganize successfully. Therefore, the validity or otherwise of the relief sought ought to be ventilated on the merits as it goes to the centre of the dispute between the parties, and not at this stage." "

Summary: Pacific Ci******es Company, under corporate rescue proceedings, sought a declaratory order to prevent the Zimbabwe Revenue Authority (ZIMRA) from enforcing tax debts that arose before the commencement of corporate rescue proceedings. The court ruled in favor of Pacific Ci******es, declaring that ZIMRA cannot enforce payment of such tax debts during the tenure of corporate rescue proceedings and must issue a Tax Clearance Certificate.

Guideline: Companies should be aware of their rights under corporate rescue proceedings and ensure they comply with tax regulations to avoid disputes with tax authorities.

Read, download and share the full-text judgment published for free full online access on the ZimLII website here: eng@2025-02-18" rel="ugc" target="_blank">https://www.zimlii.org/akn/zw/judgment/zwhhc/2025/99/eng@2025-02-18

Like and Follow us for more similar content.

Zimbabwe Legal Information Institute

28/04/2025

23/04/2025

23/04/2025

25/03/2025

25/03/2025

21/03/2025

20/03/2025

18/03/2025

17/03/2025

14/03/2025

14/03/2025

14/03/2025

12/03/2025

12/03/2025

Address

Opening Hours

Website

Alerts

Contact The Organization

Shortcuts

Share

Category

Monday	08:00 - 16:30
Tuesday	08:00 - 16:30
Wednesday	08:00 - 16:30
Thursday	08:00 - 16:30
Friday	08:00 - 16:30