Easy Cash Syndicate v Carry Mine Complex (Pvt) Ltd and Others

The applicant held a special grant to mine for gold (number 5968) covering approximately 194,961 hectares around Matopos National Park in Matabeleland South. The first respondent held an adjacent mining claim (Shamrock claims registration number 33197) that shared a common boundary with the applicant's claim. A boundary dispute arose when, on 7 April 2017, the first respondent's employees challenged the applicant's presence at its mining site, confiscated gold ore that the applicant had mined, and took over mining activities. This led to HC 1039/17 where a provisional order was granted on 21 April 2017 interdicting all mining activities pending resolution by the mining commissioner. The provisional order was confirmed on 1 June 2017, declaring the applicant the registered owner of Area 1090 under special grant 5968. The second respondent (Provincial Mining Director) conducted an investigation and survey, determining on 22 June 2017 that of the applicant's seven active mining shafts, only shaft 6 fell within the first respondent's boundaries, while shafts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 were on the applicant's claim. Despite this determination and the court order, on 16 July 2017 the first respondent returned and started extracting gold ore from shafts 2 and 3 on the applicant's claim. Police attended the scene and found Bekezela Moyo (first respondent's representative) aware of the court order but continuing operations while demanding to see the special grant. The applicant's special grant had been renewed to subsist until 9 July 2018.

• Whether the applicant could seek eviction by way of urgent application or was required to proceed by summons action
• Whether the first respondent was in contempt of the court order dated 1 June 2017
• Whether the court could rely on the determination of the mining commissioner (second respondent) in resolving the boundary dispute
• Whether the applicant was entitled to eviction of the first respondent from mining shafts determined to be on the applicant's claim
• Whether the court had properly referred the matter to the mining commissioner under section 345(1) of the Mines and Minerals Act

The court granted a provisional order with the following interim relief: (1) The first respondent and all persons occupying area 1090 under special grant 5968, particularly mining shafts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 as determined by the second respondent, at the instance of the first respondent were evicted from that mining area; (2) The sheriff of the High Court, with assistance of the Zimbabwe Republic Police, was directed to evict the first respondent and those claiming through it; (3) The first respondent and all those claiming through it were prohibited from moving any ore extracted from shafts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 under special grant 5968 issued to the applicant upon their eviction.

Where a party's rights to mining claims have been determined by a court order and confirmed by an administrative determination of a mining commissioner under section 345(1) of the Mines and Minerals Act, and those determinations remain unchallenged and extant, eviction of persons mining in breach of such determinations can properly be obtained by way of urgent application. The court is entitled to rely on the findings of a mining commissioner where a matter has been properly referred for investigation and report, either by consent of the parties or in the exercise of the court's discretion under the Act. Contempt of a court order cannot be excused by demanding to see supporting documentation (such as a renewed special grant) where the court order itself remains valid and binding.

The court observed that Bekezela Moyo's conduct in demanding to see the renewed special grant before complying with the court order demonstrated 'a warped way of thinking' and that he appeared to have taken advantage of the fact that in the previous application the applicant did not have a renewed special grant. The court remarked that the contempt was particularly blatant, stating 'A contempt of a court order has never been so blatant.' The court also noted that there was no possibility of the first respondent being evicted from its own claim, as the mining commissioner's determination had clearly identified which shafts belonged to which party.

This case is significant in Zimbabwean mining law as it clarifies the interplay between court orders and administrative determinations by mining commissioners in resolving boundary disputes. It demonstrates that contempt of court orders will be dealt with decisively, even in the context of mining disputes. The judgment confirms that eviction can be obtained by way of urgent application where the applicant's rights have been clearly established by prior court orders and administrative determinations. It also illustrates the proper application of section 345(1) of the Mines and Minerals Act, showing how courts can refer mining disputes to mining commissioners for investigation and report, and how such determinations, when unchallenged, become binding on the parties. The case emphasizes that parties cannot simply ignore court orders and administrative determinations by making demands to see documentation (such as special grants) when their obligations under existing orders are clear.