Confidence Mining Private Limited v Tianboa Mineral Industry Private Limited and Others

The applicant had held a special grant to conduct prospecting operations from June 2016 which expired in July 2017. The renewal was denied. The applicant claimed to have installed a gold mill at the farm and, after discontinuing mining operations, claimed to have remained in peaceful possession of the mill. The first respondent (Tianboa Mineral Industry) had first mining rights in the area where the gold mill was located. On or around 3 December 2018, the first respondent, accompanied by police under the command of the third respondent and a group of people, came to the site and allegedly threatened to dispossess the applicant of the gold mill. The first respondent brought a letter purporting to give them authority to evict the applicant. The applicant alleged that the first respondent, with police assistance, disturbed its peaceful possession. The first respondent argued it was acting in terms of s 381 of the Mines and Minerals Act to serve an order from the Mining Commission requiring the applicant to vacate. Evidence showed the team met resistance from the applicant's security guards, and dispossession did not actually take place. The applicant's representative later admitted they had restored themselves to the mill.

• Whether the applicant had been unlawfully despoiled of possession of the gold mill
• Whether the applicant had approached the court with clean hands
• Whether the applicant's allegations of dispossession were truthful and supported by evidence
• Whether a party who takes the law into their own hands can seek the court's assistance

The application was dismissed with costs.

A litigant seeking the court's assistance must approach the court with clean hands and must not be guilty of lack of probity or honesty in respect of the circumstances which cause them to seek relief. Where an applicant has not been candid with the court and has misrepresented facts (claiming dispossession when only threats occurred), the court will not grant relief. A litigant who takes the law into their own hands and has no respect for the law cannot expect the courts to come to their aid. For a spoliation application to succeed, actual dispossession must be proven, not merely threats of dispossession.

The court observed that there appeared to be an unstated history between the parties which neither was willing to fully disclose. The court emphasized that while the application was dismissed, if the first respondent intended to pursue eviction of the applicant, it must do so within the confines of the law and through proper legal procedures under the Mines and Minerals Act. The court noted that allowing a litigant with unclean hands to seek the court's assistance risks compromising the court's integrity and making the court a party to unclean hand transactions.

This case reinforces fundamental principles of South African and Zimbabwean law regarding the requirement for litigants to approach courts with clean hands and to present truthful versions of events. It demonstrates that courts will not entertain spoliation claims where the alleged dispossession is not supported by evidence and where the applicant has been dishonest in its allegations. The case also illustrates that self-help remedies and taking the law into one's own hands will not be condoned by the courts. It provides guidance on the evidential requirements for spoliation applications in the mining context and the consequences of misleading the court.