HARARE — A Zimbabwean cement importer has taken the government to court over a newly introduced 30% surtax on cement imports from Zambia, arguing that the levy is unconstitutional and violates regional trade protocols.
Augutich Investments (Pvt) Ltd filed an urgent application at the High Court seeking to suspend the tax introduced under Statutory Instrument 50A of 2025, which came into effect on May 16. The company claims the surtax breaches Zimbabwe’s commitments under the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA) trade agreement and is being applied retroactively to goods purchased before the tax was announced.
“The retrospective application of the 30% surtax on cement imported from Zambia is irrational, unfair and unlawful,” said Levy Mashingaidze, CEO of Augutich Investments, in his founding affidavit. “It not only violates the basic principles of legal certainty but also cripples our operations, threatening the viability of the business.”
Mashingaidze said more than 50 trucks loaded with cement have been stranded at the Chirundu border post since May 21, five days after the law was gazetted. Each truck is incurring US$200 in demurrage charges daily, amounting to over US$10,000 per day in unexpected costs.
“If the tax is not reversed, our business faces an annual financial burden of over US$2.9 million,” he said.
The company’s attorney, Gift Nyandoro of Mugiya Law Chambers, filed a certificate of urgency arguing that the new regulation violates international obligations.
“This matter is urgent and cannot wait to be heard on the ordinary court roll,” Nyandoro wrote. “Our client’s trucks remain parked at Chirundu, not because of non-compliance, but due to a contested and suddenly introduced surtax that goes against regional trade principles.”
Augutich wants the High Court to issue a temporary interdict stopping the Zimbabwe Revenue Authority from collecting the surtax on cement already in transit or purchased before May 16. The company is also seeking a declaration that SI 50A of 2025 is inconsistent with COMESA rules and therefore unconstitutional.
The Ministry of Finance, Economic Development and Investment Promotion is cited as the sole respondent. As of Friday, it had not yet responded to the application.
