Judgment No. 23/18 Civil Appeal No. SC 145/15 definition of ‘fees’ as defined in s 30 as read with the 17th Schedule to the Act. The court a quo agreed. [24] Mr de Bourbon submitted in his heads of argument that the nostro charges were not liable to non-resident tax for three reasons. a) There had to be a payer who made a physical payment from which the tax could be withheld. Since the appellant was not a payer the schedule did not apply. b) The payment had to be from a source within Zimbabwe and no payment had been made from Zimbabwe, the debits having been made by the foreign bank to the nostro accounts. c) The fees had to be in respect of services of a technical, managerial or administrative nature. In this case the fees did not fall within the above description and the section did not apply. Reliance was placed on the judgment of CHEDA J in Sunfresh Enterprises (Pvt) Ltd t/a Bulembi Safaris v Zimbabwe Revenue Authority7 in which it was held that payment of a commission outside Zimbabwe by a foreign client to a foreign marketing agent of a local safari operator did not constitute payment of fees in terms of para 1(1) of the 17th Schedule of the Income Tax Act. [25] On behalf of the respondent it was submitted as follows. The foreign banks earned certain fees for transactions undertaken on the nostro accounts held by them on behalf of the appellant. Those fees were paid by the appellant. Whichever method was employed by the appellant in making payment, money moved from the account held in the name of the appellant to that of the foreign or non-resident and the appellant is consequently regarded as having paid 7 2004 (1) ZLR 506 (H) 12