The applicant, DGL Investments Number Two (Pvt) Ltd, owned mining claims in Kwekwe known as Gaika Mine, acquired in June 2011. The mine had been closed for some time while the applicant conducted a multi-million dollar exploration drilling programme. On 15 February 2018, the first respondent, Vongaishe Mupereri MP (Member of Parliament for Mbizo Constituency), wrote to the applicant advising of a planned takeover of the mine by organized community members. On 23 February 2018, over 200 persons marched to the mine and took it over, entering the mine pit and commencing mining operations including blasting near Gaika Primary School. The applicant reported the trespassing to the Zimbabwe Republic Police, but the officer in charge refused to act, claiming the matter was political. The first respondent gave an interview to the Sunday News on 25 February 2018 boasting that the capture was his brainchild to create employment. Clashes erupted between different groups of illegal occupiers on 2 March 2018, with one person feared dead, and a passer-by was killed by a stone from a blast on 4 March 2018.
The court granted a provisional order with the following interim relief: (1) The first respondent was ordered to cease and desist from inciting, encouraging, inflaming, or persuading any person from entering the Gaika Mine premises; (2) The second respondent (Commissioner General Zimbabwe Republic Police) was ordered to remove from the mine all persons not employed by the applicant; (3) The third respondent (Minister of Mines and Mining Development) was ordered to temporarily suspend issuing any rights in respect of Gaika Mine and to deal only with authorized representatives of the applicant; (4) The fourth respondent (Fidelity Printers and Refineries) was ordered not to deal with anyone other than authorized representatives of the applicant regarding gold from Gaika Mine.
In spoliation proceedings, an applicant must prove two elements: (1) possession of the property, and (2) forcible or wrongful interference with that possession. The lawfulness of the possession is irrelevant. The purpose of the mandament van spolie is to preserve law and order and discourage persons from taking the law into their own hands. To give effect to these objectives, the status quo ante must be restored until a competent court assesses the relative merits of each party's claims. A Member of Parliament has no legal authority to organize or authorize the takeover of private mining property on behalf of constituents, and such actions constitute illegal self-help regardless of the stated motivation to assist the community or create employment.
The court made strong observations about the rule of law in a constitutional democracy, stating that the first respondent, as a legislator, should be the first to understand this principle. The court criticized the "Robin Hood" mentality, noting that when such mystical explanations of an MP's success are stripped to their bare bones, they are exposed as illegal activity. The court commented that it is disappointing that the MP did not attempt to point to any legal foundation for his actions or suggest that any attempt was made to obtain a mining licence, underscoring the illegality of the operations. The court also noted the irony that the police officer in charge refused to act on the report of trespassing by claiming the matter was "political," thereby abdicating the police's constitutional mandate to enforce the law. The court observed that spoliatory relief is "a pillar of civil justice" that prevents degeneration into "the law of the jungle where only the fittest of the fittest survive."
This case reaffirms the fundamental importance of spoliatory relief (mandament van spolie) in Zimbabwean law as a mechanism to prevent self-help and maintain the rule of law. It establishes that even actions purportedly taken by elected representatives on behalf of their constituents cannot override property rights or justify unlawful occupation and mining operations. The case emphasizes that in a constitutional democracy, no person, regardless of their political status or populist motivations, has the power to authorize the seizure of private property without legal foundation. The judgment reinforces that the police have a constitutional duty to enforce the law regardless of whether a matter is perceived as 'political'. The case serves as an important reminder that spoliatory relief focuses solely on restoring possession and does not concern itself with the lawfulness of the original possession, thereby maintaining order while allowing disputes to be resolved through proper legal channels.