CaseNotes LogoCaseNotes
  • Home
  • Library
  • Research
  • Discussion Hub
  • Wiki
  • Latin Dictionary
  • Question Bank
  • Settings
S

Student

Student Account

South African Law • Jurisdictional Corpus
HomeLibraryResearchQuestionsSettings
Judicial Precedent
Ask AI

Blackgate Investments (Private) Limited v Minister of Mines and Mining Development N.O. and Others

CitationJudgment No SC 64/25, Civil Appeal No. SC 326/24
JurisdictionZW
Area of Law
Mining LawAdministrative Law
Free account

Get the most out of this judgment

Create a free CaseNotes account to save this case, see how it's cited, get an AI summary, and search 10,000+ SA judgments.

Create free accountor sign in
Civil Procedure

Facts of the Case

Blackgate Investments (Pvt) Ltd (appellant), Ran Mine (Pvt) Ltd (third respondent), and G & P Industries (Pvt) Ltd (fourth respondent) had a long-standing dispute since 2009 over adjacent mining claims known as Kimberly 18, 19, 20, and 21 in Bindura district. Ran Mine and G & P Industries complained that Blackgate had over-pegged and encroached onto their mining claims. The Mining Commissioner registered claims for all parties as "Kimberly 18", creating confusion. In 2010, the Commissioner recommended cancellation of Ran Mine and G & P Industries' claims, but the Minister, following the Attorney General's advice, did not cancel them. Blackgate's review application was dismissed, but on appeal in SC 236/11, the Supreme Court remitted the matter to the Minister to determine whether the claims had been forfeited when Blackgate registered its claims. A Dispute Resolution Committee was constituted and conducted inspections in 2021, making findings but not producing survey maps and diagrams as ordered by the Supreme Court. The Minister then cancelled Blackgate's certificate of registration for Kimberly 18. Blackgate's subsequent review application was dismissed by the High Court. Blackgate then applied for a compelling order to force the Minister and Commissioner to conduct a survey and produce diagrams, which was also dismissed by the High Court with costs on a higher scale for abuse of process. Blackgate appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Issues

  • Whether the relief sought in the notice of appeal was exact as required by Rule 37(1)(e) of the Supreme Court Rules, 2018
  • Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the application for a compelling order
  • Whether the Dispute Resolution Committee complied with the Supreme Court's order in SC 236/11
  • Whether the High Court erred in awarding costs on a higher scale

Judicial Outcome

The matter was struck off the roll with costs on the ordinary scale.

Ratio Decidendi

Rule 37(1)(e) of the Supreme Court Rules, 2018 requires that the exact relief sought must be stated in the notice of appeal itself. The relief sought cannot be stated by reference to the contents of another document or court proceeding. Rule 37(1) is couched in mandatory and peremptory terms, and failure to comply with its requirements renders the notice of appeal fatally defective and a nullity. A nullity cannot be cured by amendment and the proper remedy is to strike the matter off the roll.

Obiter Dicta

The Court noted that although the matter was struck off on a procedural technicality, the Minister and Commissioner had failed for several years to comply with the Supreme Court's order in SC 236/11, which had resulted in the parties having to make multiple applications to resolve disputes between them. This justified awarding costs on the ordinary scale rather than a higher scale, despite the defective appeal. The Court also noted during submissions that counsel for the Minister and Commissioner conceded he was barred and did not have the right of audience before the Court, and that his clients would abide by the decision of the Court. The Court did not determine the substantive merits of whether the High Court erred in its various findings regarding the survey, over-pegging, and compliance with the Supreme Court order.

Legal Significance

This case reinforces the strict interpretation and application of the Supreme Court Rules, 2018, particularly Rule 37(1)(e) requiring that the exact relief sought must be stated in the notice of appeal itself. It confirms that the relief cannot be stated by reference to another document or court proceeding. The judgment emphasizes that Rule 37(1) is mandatory and peremptory, and failure to comply renders the notice of appeal fatally defective and a nullity that cannot be cured by amendment. The case also demonstrates judicial discretion in awarding costs where administrative authorities have contributed to protracted litigation through failure to comply with court orders, justifying ordinary scale costs rather than a higher scale despite a defective appeal.

Cases Cited in This Judgment

  • Fadzai John v Delta Beverages LimitedJudgment No. SC 40/17; Chamber Application No. SC 454/16
    Cites

    Cited for the proposition that a nullity cannot be amended and where a notice of appeal does not comply with the rules, the matter ought to be struck off the…

  • Pretorius v Trustees of Ponders End Body Corporate and Earth Zone PropertiesCSOS 7586/GP/22 (Adjudication Order, 03 June 2024)
    Appeal From

    Blackgate appealed the High Court's judgment of 17 May 2024. The Supreme Court found that the relief sought in the notice of appeal was not exact as required…

  • Sobusa Gula Ndebele v Chinembiri Energy BhunuJudgment No. SC 34/10, Civil Appeal No. 35/10
    Applies

    The Court applied the principle that once the notice of appeal clearly sets out the exact nature of the relief sought, Rule 29(1)(e) (now Rule 37(1)(e)) has…

  • Zimbabwe Newspapers (1980) Limited v Tembani KufaJudgment No. SC 137/21, Civil Appeal No. SC 393/13
    Applies

    The Court applied the principle that failure to comply with mandatory provisions of the rules when lodging an appeal renders the appeal a nullity which cannot…

Practice This Case

Sign up to practise IRAC analysis, issue spotting, and argument building on this case.

Explore More Cases

More Mining Law cases

  • Aaron Shanje v Ticharwa Murehwa and OthersHH 218-18, HC 9346/17
  • Abigail Nyarota v Mutare Board and Paper Mills Limited and OthersJudgment No. SC 16/25, Civil Appeal No. SC 473/24
  • Aceball Investments (Private) Limited v Stephen Murambasvina N.O. and OthersHH 666-16, HC 7255/16
  • Advocate Prakash Mani Sharma and Others v. Godavari Marble Industries Pvt. Ltd. and OthersWrit No. 068-WO-0082 (Supreme Court of Nepal, Full Bench, decided on April 16, 2015 / Baisakh 3, 2072)
  • African Consolidated Resources Plc and Others v Minister of Mines and Mining Development and OthersHH 57-10, HC 1345/10
  • African Consolidated Resources Private Limited v The StateHH 145-13, CRB 166/10
  • Agri South Africa v Minister for Minerals and Energy(CCT 51/12) [2013] ZACC 9
  • Agri South Africa v Minister for Minerals and Energy

More Zimbabwe cases

  • (1) Douglas Tanyanyiwa (2) Douglas Warriors Football Club v Lawrence Bernard GwaradaCivil Appeal No. SC 150/11; Judgment No. SC 79/2014
  • (1) Elias Hwenga (2) Mercy Hwenga (3) Kenneth (4) Prince Nyemba (5) A. P. Phillip and Company (Private) Limited v FBC Bank LimitedJudgment No. SC 36/21, Civil Appeal No. SC 204/16
  • (1) Isador Husaiwevhu (2) Walter Mutowo (3) Fungai Zinyama v (1) UZ-UCSF Collaborative Research Programme (2) Sheriff of Zimbabwe N.O (3) High Court Registrar N.OJudgment No. SC 86/25, Civil Appeal No. SC 302/25
  • (1) Petros Makaza (2) Golden Nhika v The State and (1) Khumbuzo Gumbo (2) Sydney Ndachengedzwa v The StateCCZ 16/17 (Const. Application No. CCZ 5/13 and Const. Application No. CCZ 102/13)
  • 1. Tapera Sengweni v The Law Society of Zimbabwe 2. Augustine Runesu Chizikani v The Law Society of ZimbabweHH 706-19, LPDT 8/18 and LPDT 27/18
  • (1) Tungamirai Madzokere (2) Lazarus Maengahama (3) Stanford Maengahama (4) Phineous Nhatarikwa (5) Stanford Mangwiro (6) Yvonne Musarurwa (7) Rebecca Mafukeni v The State
SC 8/12; Civil Application No. 318/11
  • A. Adam and Company (Private) Limited & 2 Others v Good Living Real Estate (Private) LimitedSC 50/21; Civil Appeal No. SC 351/19
  • A. Adam and Company (Private) Limited and Others v Goodliving Real Estate (Private) LimitedSC 18/21; Civil Appeal No. SC 444/19