Antech Laboratories (Pvt) Ltd v Khan and Mawadzi Milling Syndicate

Antech Laboratories (Pvt) Ltd (the applicant) owned Purdown Farm of Aspdale under Deed of Transfer number 2586/90. On 27 August 2018, the Permanent Secretary for Mines and Mining Development issued Special Grant 6899 over a portion of Purdown Farm to the 1st respondent, Khan and Mawadzi Milling Syndicate, without giving the applicant an opportunity to be heard. The applicant challenged this grant in case number HC 2790/18, and obtained a provisional order prohibiting the 1st respondent from conducting any mining operations under SG 6899. On 14 October 2019, the applicant's manager discovered unauthorized occupants (1st respondent's employees and their families) living in structures on the applicant's property within the area covered by SG 6899. The 1st respondent claimed these were security personnel to protect its investment. There were no ablution facilities or running water at the site, creating health and safety risks. After unsuccessful demands for the occupants to vacate, the applicant filed this urgent chamber application for eviction.

• Whether the matter was urgent and properly brought as an urgent chamber application
• Whether the applicant had locus standi to bring the application
• Whether a special grant confers ownership rights or only mining rights over the land
• Whether the 1st respondent's employees had any right to occupy the structures on the applicant's property
• Whether the occupation of the premises by the 1st respondent's employees violated the provisional order in case HC 2790/18
• Whether the certificate of urgency was valid
• Whether there was proper service of the application
• Whether an eviction order should be granted on an urgent basis

The court granted interim relief ordering: (1) The 1st respondent to evict its employees and all persons claiming occupation through it from the structures on Purdown Farm of Aspdale; (2) If the 1st respondent failed to comply within 5 days of service, the Zimbabwe Republic Police stationed at Kwekwe were authorized to evict all unauthorized persons from the structures; (3) The provisional order to be served on the 1st respondent at the offices of its legal practitioners, Farai and Associates.

A special grant issued under section 291 of the Mines and Minerals Act confers mining rights only and not ownership rights over the land covered by the grant. The owner of the land retains ownership rights. Where a court order prohibits mining operations under a special grant, there is no legal basis for the special grant holder to allow its employees to occupy structures on the owner's land, as such occupation can only be justified in relation to authorized mining activities. The absence of proper sanitation and water facilities at premises where families are residing creates an urgent situation requiring court intervention to protect human health and the environment.

The court observed that it was "mind boggling" that the 1st respondent obtained SG 6899 on 27 August 2018 (set to expire on 26 August 2020) but was only contemplating sinking a borehole after the applicant filed the urgent application. The court also expressed the view that the 1st respondent appeared to be "letting the premises to those so called security guards" rather than genuinely using them as security personnel. The court noted that if it had been the Legislature's intention for special grant holders to have ownership rights, this would create an absurd situation given that special grants are for limited time periods. The court also commented that the rules on service of documents exist to ensure court documents are brought to the attention of parties, and substantial compliance should be recognized where no prejudice results.

This case is significant in Zimbabwean property and mining law as it clarifies the distinction between ownership rights and mining rights. It establishes that the granting of a special grant under the Mines and Minerals Act confers only mining rights to the holder, not ownership of the land. The landowner retains ownership rights despite the special grant. The case also demonstrates the court's willingness to intervene urgently to protect human health and the environment where unauthorized occupation creates sanitation and health hazards. It reinforces the principle that mining rights do not entitle the holder to occupy or allow others to occupy the land for purposes unrelated to the authorized mining operations, particularly where a court order has suspended those mining operations.