Dumisani Vincent Sibanda and Nqobizitha Sibanda v Susan and Virimayi Syndicate and Others

The applicants pegged and registered mining block Zulu 8 in Fort Rixon on 26 April 2012 and were issued Certificate of Registration number 46972. They conducted mining operations peacefully until 7 August 2015 when the Acting Provincial Mining Director for Matabeleland South ordered them to cease all mining operations and issued a notice of intention to cancel their certificate under section 50(1)(a) and (b) of the Mines and Minerals Act. The grounds were that there were two co-existing claims bearing the name Zulu 8, and irregularities in the applicants' registration documents. The applicants appealed against the cancellation notice on 24 August 2015 through the fourth respondent's office as directed. The appeal remained undetermined for almost two years. The applicants discovered that the first respondent was conducting mining operations at the disputed site without being ordered to cease operations. They brought this urgent application to suspend all mining activities pending determination of their appeal.

• Whether the application was urgent and properly brought on an urgent basis
• Whether the applicants had a prima facie right to prevent mining operations on Zulu 8 pending determination of their appeal
• Whether an appeal suspends the decision appealed against
• Whether the balance of convenience favoured granting the interdict
• Whether the Provincial Mining Director properly handled the registration and appeal process

The provisional order was granted. All mining activities at Zulu 8 were suspended pending determination of the applicants' appeal against the cancellation of Certificate of Registration No. 46972. The fourth respondent was ordered to ensure no mining activity is carried out by the first and/or second respondents on Zulu 8 and to enlist the services of the Zimbabwe Republic Police to assist in giving effect to the order.

When a mining certificate holder has noted an appeal against a notice of intention to cancel their certificate in accordance with the Mines and Minerals Act, they retain a prima facie right to prevent competing mining operations on their registered claim pending determination of the appeal. An appeal suspends the decision appealed against unless there is specific provision to the contrary. In mining disputes, where minerals are finite and can be depleted, and where damages would be an illusory remedy against small-scale miners, the balance of convenience favours suspending all mining operations until the dispute is resolved. A delay of 22 days between discovering infringing conduct and filing an urgent application is reasonable and does not defeat urgency.

The court made strong critical observations about the conduct of the Provincial Mining Director's office, describing the handling of the matter as "far from satisfactory" and the allegations of impropriety as raising "serious concerns." The court noted it was "quite disturbing" that the office allowed registration and three years of peaceful operations before seeking cancellation under unclear circumstances in favour of a competitor, and that an appeal properly lodged allegedly never reached the Minister's office. The court stated: "Perhaps it is time that the Ministry of Mines seriously looks into the bottlenecks which starkly appear in the offices of Provincial Mining Directors and find ways of reforming them." The court observed that Dispute Resolution Committees have not achieved their purpose of expediting dispute settlement, as mining disputes continue to clog the court system. The court commented that "there can be no excuse for instance for a Provincial Mining Director sitting on an appeal for two years without forwarding it to the Minister thereby eroding public confidence and trust."

This case highlights serious systemic problems in the administration of mining disputes by Provincial Mining Directors in Zimbabwe, including delays in processing appeals, questionable administrative conduct, and lack of transparency. The judgment emphasizes the principle that in mining disputes involving finite resources, interim relief suspending mining operations is appropriate pending resolution of disputes, particularly where an appeal has been properly noted. The case demonstrates judicial oversight of administrative action in the mining sector and the need for reform of Dispute Resolution Committees and provincial mining offices to reduce litigation. It affirms that appeals generally suspend decisions unless specifically provided otherwise, and that a notice of intention to cancel does not constitute actual cancellation.