Zimbabwe’s High Court Rejects Challenge to Wealth Tax

The High Court has dismissed an attempt by CCC legislator Caston Matewu to challenge Zimbabwe’s newly introduced Wealth Tax.

Finance Minister Mthuli Ncube’s Wealth Tax imposes a 1% levy on additional residential properties valued at over US$250,000.

Matewu named Ncube, Parliament, and the Attorney-General as respondents in his legal action against the tax.

He argued that the tax violates the constitutional right to equal protection under Section 56(1), among other rights.

Matewu’s challenge was based on claims that the tax unfairly distributes the tax burden, contravening Section 298(1)(b)(i) of the Constitution.

He sought a judicial declaration that Sections 36 and 22 of the Finance Act are constitutionally invalid.

Matewu criticized the Wealth Tax for not addressing income disparity, accusing it of unfairly targeting the middle class.

He pointed out that the tax discriminates against residential property owners, ignoring other forms of wealth like commercial properties.

Matewu argued for the Wealth Tax’s annulment due to its discriminatory nature and lack of fairness in assessing wealth.

He compared Zimbabwe’s approach to wealth taxation with international practices, highlighting its focus on property rather than income.

The Attorney-General contested the application’s validity, arguing that the respondents were improperly cited.

Ncube countered that Matewu failed to show how the tax treated similar groups differently, a key aspect of proving discrimination.

The Finance Minister also defended the tax by stating it does not infringe on the right to shelter, as primary residences are exempt.

He further argued that the tax does not undermine human dignity, which is protected under Section 51 of the Constitution.

Ncube highlighted that the tax threshold was debated and adjusted in Parliament, showing democratic scrutiny.

Justice Gladys Mhuri, after considering the arguments, ruled that Matewu did not prove unequal treatment under the law.

She found no evidence that the Wealth Tax infringes on children’s rights to shelter as claimed by Matewu.

The judge criticized Matewu’s broad approach to citing constitutional provisions, finding none applicable to his case.

Justice Mhuri concluded that the application was ill-conceived, dismissing it without ordering costs.

This ruling upholds the Wealth Tax, reinforcing the government’s approach to taxing additional property wealth.

It also sets a precedent for how constitutional challenges to fiscal policies might be addressed in Zimbabwe.

The decision reflects the judiciary’s stance on balancing economic policy with constitutional rights.