Chivero Quarries (Pvt) Ltd v Velocity Motors (Pvt) Ltd

Chivero Quarries held a Certificate of Registration for mining claim Hunyani 158 on Idaho Farm, issued by the Mining Commissioner on 20 December 2017. Velocity Motors purchased a quarry plant fixed to the same claim in March 2017 through an auction sale, and was issued a quarry mining permit by Chegutu Municipality on 31 March 2017, valid until 31 December 2017. When Chivero sought to evict Velocity from the claim, Velocity was no longer in possession of a valid permit as it had expired and was not renewed. Chivero filed the eviction application (HC 901/18) on 1 February 2018. Velocity filed a notice of opposition on 12 February 2018, and subsequently filed a separate application (HC 4290/18) for dismissal of the eviction application for want of prosecution, as Chivero had delayed about two months in setting the matter down for hearing.

• Whether the application for dismissal for want of prosecution should be granted given the delay in prosecuting the eviction application
• Whether Chivero had locus standi to evict Velocity based on its Certificate of Registration
• Whether the Certificate of Registration held by Chivero was fraudulently obtained and therefore invalid
• Whether Velocity had a valid defence to resist eviction based on an expired quarry mining permit
• Whether an expired permit retains residual rights allowing continued occupation
• The nature and hierarchy of rights between a Certificate of Registration under the Mines and Minerals Act and a quarry permit issued by a Municipality

1. The application for dismissal of case HC 4290/18 is dismissed with no order as to costs. 2. The application for eviction (HC 901/18) is granted with costs.

1. A Certificate of Registration issued under the Mines and Minerals Act creates real rights in a mining claim that are enforceable against the world at large, giving the holder locus standi to evict unauthorized occupiers. 2. Challenges to the authenticity or validity of a Certificate of Registration cannot be raised merely as a defence to eviction proceedings; separate proceedings seeking invalidation must be brought. 3. An expired municipal quarry permit does not confer residual rights to continue occupation where no renewal application was made before expiration and before eviction proceedings were commenced. 4. A Certificate of Registration under the Mines and Minerals Act constitutes a superior right compared to a municipal quarry permit issued under the Rural District Councils Act. 5. In applications for dismissal for want of prosecution under Rule 236(3), courts must exercise discretion considering: (a) the extent of the delay, (b) the explanation for delay, (c) prospects of success on the merits, and (d) the balance of convenience, and should prefer disposition on the merits where appropriate.

The court observed that even if Chegutu Municipality recognized Velocity as the "sitting operator" who could object to granting a quarry permit to Chivero, this recognition did not confer legal rights to operate without a valid permit. The court also noted that while the Rural District Councils Act grants municipalities power to issue quarry permits under section 13(g) of the second schedule, it does not specify when permits should be renewed, but reasonable inference dictates that renewal should occur before expiration to maintain legal operations. The court further observed that it is in the interest of parties and the court to dispose of matters on the merits rather than by default judgment (dismissal for want of prosecution), as default judgments are susceptible to rescission applications. The court also commented that parties holding different mineral rights could theoretically co-exist on the same claim if mining different minerals, though this was not directly relevant to the decision.

This case is significant in Zimbabwean mining law as it clarifies the hierarchy and nature of mining rights, establishing that a Certificate of Registration under the Mines and Minerals Act creates superior real rights enforceable against the world at large, including holders of municipal quarry permits. The case also addresses important procedural issues regarding applications for dismissal for want of prosecution under Rule 236(3), clarifying the discretionary factors courts must consider (extent of delay, explanation, prospects of success, balance of convenience). The judgment reinforces that challenges to the validity of registered rights must be brought by way of separate proceedings seeking invalidation, not merely raised as a defence in eviction proceedings. It also clarifies that expired permits without timely renewal applications do not retain residual rights allowing continued occupation.