Charles Moyo v Secretary for Mines & Mining Development N.O. and Others

The applicant registered a block of 10 gold reef claims known as "Shebeen King" (registration number 6734) on 9 July 1996 after transfer from Boulder Mining Company. The claims were physically marked with six beacons and the applicant consistently paid inspection fees, maintaining the claims until 2021. In October 2018, the applicant's mine manager reported that the 3rd respondent had taken gold ore from the applicant's claims, destroyed permanent beacons, and continued mining on those claims. The 2nd respondent (Provincial Mining Director) held a dispute resolution hearing in July 2019 and on 23 August 2019 made a determination based on a Global Positioning System (GPS) survey conducted on 15 August 2019. The 2nd respondent found that while the 3rd respondent's claim (Confidence NW registration number 30846) matched its ground and docket position, the applicant's claim did not match according to GPS. The 2nd respondent ordered that Shebeen King Mine must revert to its docket position as at registration. It was common cause that the applicant had not re-pegged his claims or physically shifted his beacons from their original July 1996 positions.

• Whether the 2nd respondent's use of GPS survey as the sole basis for determining the mining dispute was legally valid and in compliance with the Mines and Minerals Act Chapter 21:05
• Whether the 2nd respondent's determination violated the principle in section 177 of the Mines and Minerals Act that prior peggers take precedence in encroachment disputes
• Whether the 2nd respondent committed a gross irregularity by applying a procedure (GPS survey) not prescribed by the governing statute
• Whether the applicant's title could be challenged after the claim had been registered for over two years, given section 58 of the Mines and Minerals Act

1. The application for review succeeded. 2. The decision by the 2nd respondent made on 23 August 2019 was set aside. 3. The 3rd respondent and all those claiming occupation under or through him were ordered to vacate the block of claims known as Shebeen King registration number 6734. 4. The 3rd respondent was ordered to pay costs of suit.

An administrative decision-maker exercising powers under the Mines and Minerals Act Chapter 21:05 cannot use a GPS survey system (or any other procedure not prescribed by the Act) as the sole or primary basis for determining mining disputes when the Act prescribes specific procedures for dispute resolution. Where a mining location has been registered for more than two years and the title has been duly maintained (as per section 58), and where there is no evidence that the prior pegger physically moved or shifted their mining block or failed to maintain beacons in their original positions, the principle in section 177 that prior peggers take precedence over subsequent peggers must be applied. A decision-maker who applies a procedure not prescribed by statute commits a gross irregularity by asking the wrong question and applying the wrong test, rendering the decision reviewable.

The court observed that the GPS system was described as a "new kid on the block" introduced in 2015 to address disputes arising from the recent "gold rush" where people have moved or shifted their blocks. While the court acknowledged that GPS technology may have practical benefits in mining dispute resolution, it emphasized that such methods must be incorporated into legislation before they can be legally applied by administrative decision-makers. The court also noted that even if there had been notices posted at Mines Offices or letters sent to miners requesting them to submit coordinates for verification (which was not proven), such administrative directives would not constitute law. The court made an implicit observation that while technological advancement is desirable, the rule of law requires that administrative authorities operate strictly within their statutory mandate until the legislature amends the relevant statutes to incorporate new procedures.

This case is significant in Zimbabwean mining law as it establishes that administrative tribunals and mining authorities cannot apply procedures or technologies (such as GPS surveys) that are not prescribed by the governing statute, even if such methods are becoming common practice or are used globally. The case reinforces the sanctity of statutory procedures in administrative decision-making and the protection afforded to registered mining titles under sections 58 and 177 of the Mines and Minerals Act. It confirms that prior peggers who have maintained their claims in accordance with the law retain priority over subsequent claimants, and that long-standing mining titles cannot be challenged on technical grounds not recognized in the applicable legislation. The judgment also serves as an important reminder that administrative authorities, as creatures of statute, cannot substitute prescribed legal procedures with administrative convenience or technological innovation without legislative amendment.