The High Court of Zimbabwe has struck from the roll an application by Chinese mining firm Xintai Resources (Pvt) Ltd, which is developing a multi-million-dollar industrial park in Beitbridge, seeking Value Added Tax (VAT) refunds from the Zimbabwe Revenue Authority (ZIMRA) after finding that the company’s founding affidavit was improperly commissioned.
Xintai Resources had approached the court seeking a declaratory order against ZIMRA over alleged non-payment of VAT refunds for several tax periods between 2023 and 2025. The company wanted the court to declare ZIMRA’s failure to process the refunds unlawful and compel the authority to immediately pay the amounts due, together with interest.
However, the case did not proceed to a determination of the substantive dispute. During the hearing held on June 10, 2026, ZIMRA’s legal counsel, Wintertons Legal Practitioners, raised a preliminary objection, arguing that Xintai Resources’ founding affidavit was invalid because it contained a computer-generated date instead of a date manually endorsed by the commissioner of oaths.
In his ruling, Justice Samuel Deme upheld the objection, relying on established legal authorities, including Mandishaika v Sithole and Ariston Management Services v Econet Wireless Zimbabwe Ltd. The judge stated that an affidavit is only valid if it is signed by both the deponent and the commissioner of oaths in each other’s presence, with the commissioner manually recording the date on which the oath was administered.
The court held that these steps must occur contemporaneously, and therefore a computer-generated date rendered the commissioning of the affidavit defective.
Related Stories
"Certainly, the founding affidavit does have a computer-generated date. This fact is
common cause. Such an affidavit according to common law developed by our courts is improperly before the court.
"Accordingly, the application is founded on nothing. Consequently, the application ought to be struck from the roll. Having reached this conclusion, it is unnecessary for the court to make a determination on the remaining point in limine," Justice Deme ruled.
The applicant’s legal representatives, Mashizha, Mutukwa and Sambo, argued that they had been prejudiced because the point in limine was only raised on the day of the hearing. However, Justice Deme dismissed the argument, stating that points of law may be raised at any stage of proceedings to promote legal certainty and finality.
The court also noted that the applicant’s counsel had indicated readiness to respond to the preliminary issue when the matter commenced.
Given that the procedural defect was only raised during the hearing, the High Court ordered that the application be struck off the roll, with each party bearing its own costs.
Leave Comments