Judgment No. 23/18 Civil Appeal No. SC 145/15 the premises, Mr Young’s evidence to the effect that the repayments, inclusive of interest, were made offshore to the offshore bank on the appellant’s instruction, called for an explanation. The explanation given by Mr Young is that the bank was the agent of the offshore bank. But this explanation presents a further difficulty. It is this. The Master Risk Participation Agreement (MRPA) concluded between the appellant (as Grantor) and the offshore bank (as Participant) and placed by the appellant before the court as an exhibit, expressly provides to the contrary. Clause 6.4 provides in relevant part: “6.4 Relationship: There is, and the Participant acknowledges that there is nothing in this Master Agreement or any Acceptance Agreement or any other agreement or understanding between the parties in relation to a participation which: (a) Constitutes the Grantor an agent, fiduciary or trustee for the Participant;” [20] Granted, the MRPA further provides that the acceptance agreement would prevail over it. However, the acceptance agreement was not produced by the appellant and it was not part of the appellant’s case that the acceptance agreement contained instructions requiring the appellant to ensure that payments were made offshore. Suffice it to say that the evidence presented by the appellant established no justification for payments in respect of the loans to be made offshore. The second issue is, therefore, determined in favour of the respondent. Whether the charges debited against the foreign nostro accounts of the appellant by the bank operating such accounts were liable to withholding tax in terms of s 30, as read with the 17th Schedule, of the Income Tax Act [Chapter 23:06]. [21] Section 30 of the Income Tax Act provides: “30 Non-residents’ tax on fees There shall be charged, levied and collected throughout Zimbabwe for the benefit of the Consolidated Revenue Fund a non-residents’ tax on fees in accordance with the 10