Ariston Holdings Limited is an agricultural enterprise operating at Kent Estates, Norton. The 5th respondent, Kundai Mining Syndicate, was issued with Certificates of Registration for mining claims 17311 and 17312 (Kent 1 and Kent 2) located within Kent Estates by the 1st respondent (Mining Commissioner) on 24 June 2021. These certificates were issued before the 5th respondent obtained an Environmental Impact Assessment Certificate (EIAC). The 5th respondent did not commence actual mining activities until after obtaining the EIAC. Following a court-ordered ground survey, it was established that Kent 1 fell foul of Section 31 of the Mines and Minerals Act regarding proximity to farming activities. The 5th respondent conceded to the order regarding Kent 1, leaving Kent 2 as the subject of the dispute.
1. The application for a declaratory order and consequential relief was granted. 2. The certificates of registration for mining claims 17311 and 17312 registered in the name of the 5th Respondent and issued by the 1st Respondent on 24 June 2021 were declared null and void and of no force. 3. The 1st Respondent was ordered to forthwith cancel and remove from the register the certificates of registration numbers 17311 and 17312 registered in the name of the 5th Respondent. 4. The 1st and 5th Respondents were ordered to pay costs of suit on the legal practitioner and client scale.
An Environmental Impact Assessment Certificate (EIAC) is a mandatory prerequisite to the issuance of a Certificate of Registration for mining claims. A Certificate of Registration issued in the absence of an EIAC is null and void ab initio (from the beginning). Subsequent obtaining of an EIAC cannot retrospectively validate a certificate that was irregularly issued—a nullity cannot be sanitized or cured. The Environmental Management Act takes precedence over the Mines and Minerals Act where there is a perceived conflict, and all legal instruments regulating mining operations must be read together in a complementary manner. Section 97 and Section 100 of the EMA Act impose additional requirements to those listed in Section 45 of the Mines and Minerals Act, requiring an EIAC before mining certificates can be validly registered.
The court made several non-binding observations: (1) In cases involving allegations about what exists on the ground regarding mining locations, it is highly undesirable for parties to appear before the court without first resorting to the administrative authority for a verification exercise, as ground surveys have the capacity to settle most disputes. (2) Administrative authorities cited in their official capacities as nominal respondents should not take sides with litigants but must state facts in a colourless manner to assist the court. The legal representatives for administrative authorities threw caution to the wind by making submissions contrary to established law. (3) The penalty provision in Section 97(2) of the EMA Act, which provides criminal sanctions for implementing projects without an EIAC, applies to the implementation of mining projects, not to the administrative act of issuing certificates, and therefore does not provide an alternative remedy to cancellation in these circumstances. (4) The court exists to interpret the law and should not be complicit where processes are done against the law.
This case is significant in Zimbabwean jurisprudence as it reinforces and applies Supreme Court precedents establishing the mandatory requirement for Environmental Impact Assessment Certificates before mining certificates can be validly issued. It confirms the supremacy of environmental law over mining law where conflicts arise, reflecting the constitutional and statutory priority given to environmental protection. The case demonstrates that administrative irregularities in the issuance of mining rights cannot be cured by subsequent compliance or regularization—a nullity remains a nullity. It also clarifies the proper role of administrative authorities as nominal respondents in litigation, emphasizing they should not take partisan positions but assist the court neutrally. The judgment is important for balancing competing land uses (agriculture versus mining) and ensuring that both farmers and miners operate within the proper legal framework.