DGL Investments Number Five (Pvt) Ltd v Innocent Makope and Others

The applicant, DGL Investments Number Five (Pvt) Ltd, brought an urgent application against fellow miner Innocent Makope (first respondent) and others. The applicant alleged that on 15 July 2025, the first respondent and his assignee conducted mining activities in the applicant's minefield (150 Copper with registration certificate number LUI11998BM). The third respondent (Provincial Mining Director) had issued a suspension order stopping mining activities, but the applicant alleged the first respondent continued mining and brought in a Chinese miner. However, the mining claim was registered in the name of EMBOLDEN Enterprises (Pvt) Ltd, not the applicant. The deponent relied on a resolution dated 16 February 2024 that authorized him to deal with the provincial office for mining issues.

• Whether the applicant had proper authority to represent EMBOLDEN Enterprises (Pvt) Ltd in the proceedings
• Whether a general resolution authorizing representation before the Provincial Mining Director suffices for court representation
• Whether a company resolution predating litigation can authorize representation in those specific proceedings
• Whether the court should intervene where the Provincial Mining Director had already issued a suspension order

The application was struck off the roll with costs.

A company resolution authorizing representation in legal proceedings must be specific to those proceedings and cannot be a general authority granted before the proceedings arose. The company must be aware of the specific legal proceedings for which it is authorizing representation. A resolution authorizing a representative to deal with a regulatory authority (such as the Provincial Mining Director) on mining issues does not extend to authorizing representation in court proceedings, particularly where that regulatory authority is a party to the litigation. Without proper authorization, a company cannot be validly represented in legal proceedings, as it is a separate legal persona from its directors and employees.

The court noted that while it appreciated the practical difficulties that may arise from requiring specific authorization for each set of proceedings, this is the legal position and must be complied with. The court observed that it is not proper to "go to the archives and withdraw a document for use in legal proceedings" when that document was not created for the specific proceedings in question. The court also noted that there were other preliminary points raised by the respondents (including issues about the registered owner being a different entity, the interim relief being final in nature, and the Provincial Mining Director having already issued a suspension order), but found it unnecessary to address these given the fatal defect in authorization.

This case reinforces important principles of corporate representation in Zimbabwean litigation. It emphasizes that companies cannot grant general, blanket authority for future litigation, but must specifically authorize representation in each set of proceedings. The case confirms that the company must be aware of the specific legal proceedings and that authorization must be contemporaneous with or subsequent to the commencement of proceedings. It demonstrates strict adherence to the principle that a company, as a separate legal persona, can only be represented by properly authorized persons, and this requirement does not depend on pleadings but is a fundamental legal principle that courts will enforce ex mero motu.