Buchwa Iron Mining Company (Pvt) Ltd v Rodreck Mumbire and Others

The applicant held Special Grant No 2104 issued on 24 February 1997 to prospect for iron ore over approximately 34,700 hectares in Reserved Area No 854 in the Gweru Mining District. On 16 May 1997, Reservation Notice No 854 was issued prohibiting prospecting and pegging in the area. On 12 March 2007, the first respondent registered iron ore claims (Leleza 1-15 and Berlena 1-15) in the reserved area. On 6 September 2007, the second respondent (Commissioner of Mines) notified the first respondent of his intention to cancel the certificates of registration as they contravened section 31(1)(b) of the Mines and Minerals Act. The certificates were purportedly cancelled on 6 November 2007 and the cancellation was gazetted on 5 February 2010. However, the first respondent was not properly served with notice of cancellation. On 1 June 2011, the first respondent obtained a court order in HC 5125/11 transferring the claims to the fourth respondent (Bearable Prospects Investments). The applicant became aware of this order on 5 July 2011 and on 12 July 2011 filed an urgent application seeking a declaration that the registrations were void and interdicting dealing with the claims. A provisional order was granted on 18 July 2011. At the time the applicant filed its application, its special grant had expired on 23 February 2010 but was pending renewal.

• Whether the applicant had locus standi to challenge the first respondent's mining claims when its special grant had expired
• Whether the applicant had a legitimate expectation that its special grant would be renewed
• Whether the registration of mining claims in a reserved area contrary to section 35(1) of the Mines and Minerals Act rendered the registration void
• Whether section 58 of the Mines and Minerals Act barred the applicant from challenging the validity of the first respondent's title more than two years after registration
• Whether the purported cancellation of the first respondent's certificates of registration on 6 November 2007 was valid despite non-compliance with section 50 of the Act
• Whether oral evidence was required to determine if the mining claims were cancelled

The provisional order was discharged. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs, including costs of the postponement on 8 March 2012.

Section 58 of the Mines and Minerals Act bars any challenge to mining title after two years from registration on grounds that pegging was invalid or illegal or that provisions of the Act were not complied with prior to registration, even where the registration was in contravention of section 35(1) prohibiting pegging in reserved areas. The two-year limitation period runs from registration regardless of when the dispute was raised with the mining commissioner, unless there is proof that the title holder was made aware of the challenge within the two-year period. An applicant can establish locus standi to challenge mining rights based on a legitimate expectation of renewal of a special grant where there are clear, unambiguous representations by competent decision-makers, a reasonable expectation based on past renewals and investments, and the decision-makers have the lawful authority to make such representations. Cancellation of certificates of registration under section 50 of the Mines and Minerals Act requires strict compliance with the notice provisions in subsections (2) to (6); failure to comply renders the purported cancellation void.

The court observed that the second respondent (Commissioner of Mines) was largely to blame for the situation both parties found themselves in, having failed to diligently discharge his statutory mandate. The court suggested that despite the application of section 58 protecting the first respondent's title, the second respondent could, if so advised, still invoke the provisions of section 50(1) of the Act to cancel the erroneously issued certificates, as section 50(1) overrides the provisions of section 58. The court noted that ordinarily, on the authority of Macfoy v United Africa Co Ltd, an act that is void ab initio is incurably bad and incapable of vindication, but this principle was displaced by the specific statutory protection in section 58. The court also commented that while the first respondent's actions in pegging and prospecting in a reserved area were unlawful and rendered the registration void, this invalidity was saved by section 58. In exercising its discretion on costs, the court noted that while the applicant was misled by correspondence from the second respondent and the first respondent's actions were unlawful, fairness dictated that each party bear its own costs given the outcome and the partial victories achieved.

This case is significant in mining law for its interpretation of section 58 of the Mines and Minerals Act, which bars challenges to mining title after two years from registration. It establishes that section 58 protects title from attack even where registration was based on illegal acts (such as pegging in a reserved area), provided the title holder was not made aware of the challenge within the two-year limitation period. The judgment also clarifies the doctrine of legitimate expectation in the mining context, confirming that an applicant can establish locus standi based on legitimate expectation of renewal where there are clear, unambiguous representations by decision-makers and a history of renewals and investment. The case emphasizes the strict procedural requirements for cancellation of mining certificates under section 50, particularly the notice provisions. It demonstrates that administrative failures by mining commissioners can have significant consequences for all parties and underscores the importance of procedural fairness in mining administration.