Dawn Mining Syndicate v Takesure Mbano and Acting Provincial Mining Director Midlands N.O

The applicant pegged and registered mining claims in Gokwe Communal Lands known as Musorowaparuka 5 Mine, registration number 30263. The first respondent lodged a complaint with the second respondent that the applicant was mining on his agricultural land. On 7 December 2015, the second respondent gave notice of a proposal to cancel the mining claims. The applicant appealed to the Minister of Mines on 16 December 2015, submitting that their mining claim was located in a forest area under Chief Chisina and not near any farming concern. Despite the appeal, on 30 March 2016 the second respondent cancelled the registration, relying on a High Court order from HC 735/12 dated 17 October 2012 (per Mutema J), which was a peace order against seven villagers disrupting the first respondent's farming activities in Chapinduka village. The applicant was not a party to that earlier court order. The applicant presented evidence from Gokwe South Rural District Council and the District Lands Officer confirming that the disputed area was not allocated for farming but was communal land used for mining, and that the first respondent had no farm administered by the Ministry of Lands in that area.

• Whether the applicant was afforded a fair hearing before the cancellation of its mining licence in accordance with the audi alteram partem rule
• Whether the second respondent acted lawfully and reasonably in cancelling the mining licence based on a High Court order that did not involve the applicant as a party
• Whether the decision to cancel the mining licence was properly made and whether the correct party was cited in the review application
• Whether the second respondent complied with constitutional and statutory requirements for administrative justice

1. The proceedings conducted by the second respondent for the cancellation of the applicant's mining licence number 30263 were declared null and void and set aside. 2. The applicant's mining licence number 30263 for Musorowaparuka 5 Mine was reinstated. 3. The first respondent was ordered to bear the costs of the application.

An administrative decision made without affording the affected party an opportunity to be heard violates the audi alteram partem rule and is contrary to the common law, the Administrative Justice Act, and section 68 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe, rendering such decision null and void. Administrative authorities must act lawfully, reasonably and in a procedurally fair manner by giving adequate notice and a reasonable opportunity to make representations before taking decisions that affect a person's rights or interests. A court order obtained against third parties who are not connected to the affected party is not binding on that party and cannot be relied upon as a basis for administrative action against them.

The court observed that not much industry was required of both the second respondent and the Minister to see through the façade presented by the first respondent. The court commented that the second respondent took an "arm chair approach" and resolved the matter from the comfort of his office in town, when a survey or even a visit to the site would have helped clarify the situation. The court also noted that the evidence suggested the first respondent was actually an illegal miner trying to take away the applicant's mining claim through misrepresentation rather than being a legitimate farmer.

This case is significant in Zimbabwean administrative law as it reinforces the fundamental importance of the audi alteram partem rule (right to be heard) as a cornerstone of natural justice in administrative decision-making. The judgment emphasizes that this common law principle has been codified in the Administrative Justice Act and given constitutional expression in section 68 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe. The case establishes that administrative authorities must afford affected parties an opportunity to make representations before decisions that impinge upon their rights are made, and that failure to do so renders such decisions reviewable and liable to be set aside. It also demonstrates that administrative decision-makers must conduct proper investigations and cannot rely on court orders that do not involve the affected party or relate to the subject matter at hand. The case illustrates the court's willingness to scrutinize administrative decisions for compliance with principles of lawfulness, reasonableness, and procedural fairness.