Brighton Mudondo v Sarah Ravengwa

The applicant filed an application for a final interdict in respect of a mining claim known as SARAMINE 'A', situate in Kwekwe District, under certificate of registration number 30705. The mine was previously registered in 2002 by the applicant's mother. The respondent is the holder of a certificate of occupancy in respect of Plot number 6 Woodridge, measuring 40 hectares, issued by Zibagwe Rural District Council for agricultural use on 6 July 2009. On 27 November 2017, the applicant purported to register a mining claim comprising 6 gold reefs on land allocated to the respondent or adjacent to it. The applicant's mining activities came into direct conflict with the respondent's agricultural activities. The applicant alleged that the respondent was disrupting his mining activities, while the respondent contended that the applicant obtained the certificate of registration by fraudulent means and had no clear right over the mining activities.

• Whether the applicant established a clear right to mining activities on the disputed land
• Whether the applicant satisfied the requirements for a final interdict
• Whether the applicant was entitled to prospect on land less than 100 hectares without the written consent of the landowner or the Minister responsible for Mines in terms of section 31(1)(g)(i) of the Mines and Minerals Act
• Whether the administrative decision to grant prospecting authority, if any, complied with the audi alteram partem rule
• Whether there was actual or reasonable apprehension of injury warranting the grant of an interdict

The application for a final interdict was dismissed with costs.

The binding legal principle established is that prospecting on land less than 100 hectares requires either the written consent of the landowner or the written consent of the Minister responsible for Mines in terms of section 31(1)(g)(i) of the Mines and Minerals Act (Chapter 21:15). In the absence of such consent, any purported mining rights are void and unenforceable. Furthermore, any administrative decision granting prospecting authority without giving the affected landowner notice and an opportunity to make representations is null and void for violation of the audi alteram partem rule. For a final interdict to be granted, the applicant must establish: (a) a clear right; (b) actual or reasonable apprehension of injury; and (c) no other adequate remedy. Where an applicant's alleged right is contested and does not in fact exist, and where no concrete injury is demonstrated, the application for a final interdict will fail.

The court observed that the alleged unlawful activities by the respondent appeared to be nothing but a smokescreen by the applicant to pursue mining activities on disputed land. The court also noted that in terms of section 180 of the Mines and Minerals Act, a landowner is prohibited from interfering with proper mining activities, but found that the applicant was not carrying out any actual mining activities at SARAMINE 'A'. The court referenced that several attempts by the Department of Mines and the Ministry of Lands to resolve the conflict had yielded negative results, suggesting the need for proper administrative resolution of such conflicts before resorting to litigation.

This case is significant in Zimbabwean (and by extension Southern African) jurisprudence as it clarifies the interplay between mining rights and land rights, particularly agricultural land rights. It reinforces the protection afforded to landowners of plots less than 100 hectares under section 31(1)(g)(i) of the Mines and Minerals Act, requiring written consent before prospecting can occur. The judgment emphasizes the importance of administrative law principles, particularly the audi alteram partem rule (right to be heard), in the context of mining registrations and the protection of existing property rights. It demonstrates that mining claims registered without proper compliance with statutory requirements and natural justice principles will not be upheld by the courts. The case also reaffirms the strict application of the requirements for final interdicts in the context of mining disputes.