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

The applicant, DGL Investments Number Five (Pvt) Ltd, a mining company in Matabeleland South Province, 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 were conducting illegal mining activities in applicant's minefield (150 Copper, registration certificate number LUI11998BM). The applicant had approached the Provincial Mining Director (third respondent) who issued a suspension order stopping all mining activities in the area. Despite this order, the first respondent allegedly continued mining and brought in a Chinese miner to conduct operations. The applicant sought an interdict to stop the respondents from interfering with or carrying out illegal mining activities on its claim. However, the registration certificate showed the mine was registered in the name of EMBOLDEN Enterprises Pvt Ltd, not the applicant. The deponent relied on a resolution dated 16 February 2024 (annexure A) authorizing him to deal with the provincial office for all mining issues.

• Whether the deponent had proper authority to represent the applicant company in the legal proceedings
• Whether a general resolution authorizing representation in matters before the Provincial Mining Director extended to court proceedings against the Provincial Mining Director and others
• Whether a company resolution must be specific to particular legal proceedings or whether blanket authority suffices
• Whether the court should grant an interdict when 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 the particular proceedings and cannot be a general or blanket authorization for future unspecified court cases. The corporate entity must be aware of the specific legal proceedings at the time authorization is granted. A resolution authorizing representation before an administrative body (such as the Provincial Mining Director) does not extend to court proceedings against that same body. A company cannot be represented in legal proceedings by a person who has not been properly authorized to do so, and this principle does not depend on the pleadings by either party.

The court noted that while it appreciated the difficulty that may arise from requiring specific authorization for each set of proceedings rather than accepting general resolutions, "that is the legal position and it must be complied with." The court also observed that it was improper for one to "go to the archives and withdraw a document for use in legal proceedings." The court indicated that because the preliminary point was upheld, it became unnecessary to deal with the substantive merits of the application, including the other four preliminary points raised by the respondents (including the issue of whether the mine was registered in EMBOLDEN Enterprises Pvt Ltd rather than the applicant, and whether the Provincial Mining Director's suspension order rendered the court application unnecessary).

This case reinforces the strict requirements for corporate authorization in Zimbabwean litigation. It establishes that companies must provide specific authorization for each set of legal proceedings, not general or blanket authority. The judgment emphasizes that corporate resolutions must demonstrate the company's awareness of and consent to the specific litigation at hand. This protects companies from unauthorized persons dragging them into court proceedings without their knowledge. The case is significant for mining law practitioners and corporate litigants, requiring careful attention to proper authorization documentation before commencing proceedings.