The applicant held farming agricultural rights over Subdivision No. 5 Derus of the Downs Farm Chegutu (147.8 hectares) by virtue of an offer letter. The 1st respondent held mining registration number 16645 over a 15B mining claim since 2018. The parties co-existed for over seven years with some incidents that were resolved by the 2nd and 3rd respondents (mining regulatory authorities), including a dispute resolution dated 16 August 2018. The applicant sought a declaratory order to invalidate the 1st respondent's mining certificate, alleging it was issued in 2018 without compliance with section 97 of the Environment Management Act (Chapter 20:27), specifically without first obtaining an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Certificate. The applicant alleged livestock deaths but provided no evidence linking these to the 1st respondent's mining operations.
The application was dismissed with costs.
To establish locus standi under section 14 of the High Court Act (Chapter 7:06), an applicant must demonstrate a real, direct and substantial interest in the subject matter that is not remote, hypothetical or academic. The mere holding of agricultural rights does not automatically confer standing to challenge a miner's compliance with environmental regulations in the absence of evidence of actual or threatened interference with the farmer's rights. Where regulatory authorities are statutorily empowered to enforce compliance with environmental impact assessment requirements, a third party seeking to challenge non-compliance must demonstrate how the alleged breach affects their legitimate interests before having standing to bring proceedings.
The court acknowledged that the law is well settled that an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Certificate must be obtained before a mining certificate is issued and before mining activities commence, citing Sereptia Resources (Private) Limited v. Ariston Holdings (Private) Limited and Related Parties SC 40/25. The court noted that what gives a person locus standi is multifaceted and context-specific, to be determined by the court based on the circumstances of each case. The court observed that having agricultural rights does not give unfettered rights to interfere in a miner's affairs where those mining rights are not infringing the farmer's rights. The court noted that the applicant did not challenge their own instrumental role in potentially sabotaging the 1st respondent's efforts to obtain the requisite EIA certificate.
This case clarifies the requirements for locus standi in disputes between farmers and miners, particularly in environmental compliance matters. It establishes that agricultural rights holders do not automatically have standing to challenge mining certificates on environmental grounds without demonstrating actual or threatened harm to their interests. The judgment emphasizes that environmental regulatory compliance is primarily a matter between miners and statutory authorities, and third parties must show concrete interference with their rights to have standing. This case is significant in the context of Zimbabwe's mining-agriculture conflicts and the interpretation of section 14 of the High Court Act regarding declaratory relief.