Daryl Archibald v Pee-Money Enterprises (Private) Limited and Others

The applicant resides on Teviotdale Farm in Mazowe, which was acquired by the Minister of Lands and Rural Resettlement in 2001 and is now state land. The farm had been subject to various illegal mining activities. In February 2022, a 70-year-old man fell into an approximately 20-meter hole sunk by miners on the farm and died shortly after being rescued. The applicant confronted the first respondent's employees and demanded documentation showing that their mining activities were properly authorized, particularly an Environmental Impact Assessment Certificate from the second respondent as required by section 97 of the Environmental Management Act. The employees fled. The applicant engaged a private investigator, Charles Mike, who on 24 May 2022 informed him that the first respondent was conducting illegal mining without proper authorization. The first respondent had been issued a special grant (SG6333) on 15 May 2019 which expired on 14 May 2021 and had not been renewed. The first respondent was also operating without a valid Environmental Impact Assessment Certificate. The applicant filed an urgent chamber application on 27 May 2022 seeking an interdict.

• Whether the applicant has locus standi in judicio to institute proceedings despite not being the owner of the farm
• Whether the matter was urgent given the delay between the first respondent's occupation since 2017 and the application filed in May 2022
• Whether the applicant established the requirements for a temporary interdict
• Whether constitutional environmental rights under section 73 of the Constitution confer standing to protect the environment
• Whether mining operations can lawfully proceed without valid Environmental Impact Assessment Certificates and mining certificates

The court granted a provisional interdict restraining the first respondent from carrying out any mining activities on the two-third shares of the Remaining Extent of Teviotdale, Mazowe. The first respondent was ordered to show cause why a final order should not be made: (1) ordering cessation of all mining operations until compliance with applicable laws; (2) ordering restoration of the status quo ante on the environment; (3) ordering filling of all holes and shafts; (4) authorizing the Sheriff to restore the environment if the first respondent fails to comply; and (5) awarding costs on the attorney and client scale. The provisional order was to be served by the applicant's legal practitioners.

Section 73(1) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe grants every person the right to an environment that is not harmful to their health and well-being, and confers standing to approach courts for protection of that environment regardless of land ownership. A person who resides on land and witnesses environmental degradation has locus standi in judicio to seek protection of constitutional environmental rights even without being the landowner or having a legal relationship with the party causing the harm. Mining operations conducted without valid Environmental Impact Assessment Certificates as required by section 97 of the Environmental Management Act, and without renewed special grants under the Mines and Minerals Act, constitute illegal mining that violates environmental protection laws and constitutional environmental rights. The requirements for a temporary interdict are satisfied where unlawful mining poses imminent threats to life and environmental degradation.

The court noted suspicions raised by the first respondent that the applicant might be colluding with CMAL (Private) Limited (the previous farm owner who had unsuccessfully challenged the farm's acquisition), but observed that such suspicions, whether true or false, remained mere suspicions upon which the court could not act, particularly where CMAL was not a party to the proceedings. The court also observed that while the law provides that an Environmental Impact Assessment application is deemed approved after sixty days if the authority does not respond, the fact remained that the first respondent was operating without a valid certificate. The court noted that given the death on the farm due to deep holes drilled without proper legal sanction and the second respondent's failure to approve the Environmental Management Plan, there were high chances the authorities might not renew the first respondent's licenses.

This case is significant in Zimbabwean environmental and constitutional law as it establishes that constitutional environmental rights under section 73 of the Constitution confer broad standing to protect the environment, independent of property ownership. It affirms that residents have locus standi to enforce environmental rights when threatened by unlawful activities, even without a proprietary interest in the land. The judgment reinforces the mandatory nature of Environmental Impact Assessment requirements under the Environmental Management Act and confirms that mining operations cannot lawfully proceed without valid certificates and compliance with environmental legislation. It demonstrates judicial willingness to grant urgent interdicts to prevent ongoing environmental harm and threats to life from illegal mining activities. The case also illustrates the constitutional dimension of environmental protection in Zimbabwe and the enforceability of section 73 rights through urgent court intervention.