Elements Minerals (Pvt) Ltd v Tashinga Mining Syndicate and Others

Elements Minerals (Pvt) Ltd (the applicant) operated a mine at Joking 37 in Shamva. The first to seventh respondents formed themselves into Tashinga Mining Syndicate and registered it with the Ministry of Mines and Mining Development on 6 March 2015 for an area described as Joking (Joking 7) in Tafuna Hills. The applicant filed an urgent chamber application seeking to interdict the respondents from visiting its mining operations, interfering with its operations, and harassing its employees. The respondents filed an urgent chamber counter-application seeking to stop the applicant from mining on their registered claims and evicting the applicant from the same. A previous dispute between some members of the first respondent and the applicant occurred in August 2014, which was resolved by the Minister of Mines on 27 November 2014, ordering parties to confine themselves to their original locations. The central issue was the location of four "Germany" shafts - two within the applicant's claims and two on the periphery. The applicant claimed it used the two outside shafts for ventilation, while the respondents claimed they had lawfully registered Joking 7 which included these shafts.

• Whether the applicant had a clear right to justify the granting of an interdict
• Whether the applicant would suffer irreparable harm if the interdict was not granted
• Whether the balance of convenience favoured granting the interdict
• Whether the first respondent's registration of Joking 7 was lawful
• Whether there was a material dispute of fact that could not be resolved on the papers
• Whether the application and counter-application were urgent

The application was dismissed with costs. The urgent chamber counter-application was upheld. The applicant was ordered to pay the costs of the urgent chamber counter-application.

For an interdict to be granted, an applicant must establish: (a) a clear right or prima facie right; (b) well-grounded apprehension of irreparable harm if the right is only prima facie established; (c) that the balance of convenience favours the granting of interim relief; and (d) that there is no other satisfactory remedy. A mining claim properly registered with the Ministry of Mines and Mining Development after due verification remains valid and lawful until altered or changed by the Minister upon proper application. Where there is a material dispute of fact regarding underground encroachment in mining operations, the matter cannot be resolved on the papers but requires expert evidence from mine surveyors and engineers.

The court observed that the applicant did not demonstrate what would cause its machinery to be damaged if a dispute was declared, nor did it state whether the machinery was situated underground or on the surface. The court noted in passing that when two applications are filed at about the same time, they may be considered as a single matter in terms of Order 13 r 85 of the High Court Rules where common questions of law or fact arise. The court commented that both parties submitted the other's application was not urgent, but since they were filed within four days of each other, they were either both urgent or both not urgent, and the question of urgency should not be allowed to derail the due administration of justice. The court noted that the applicant's complaint letter to the Deputy Minister was not the same as an application to the Minister, as these are two separate and distinct documents.

This case is significant in Zimbabwean mining law as it clarifies the requirements for obtaining an interdict in mining disputes and emphasizes the importance of proper registration of mining claims. It demonstrates that once a mining claim is properly registered with the Ministry of Mines and Mining Development after due verification by surveyors, it remains valid until altered by the appropriate authority (the Minister). The case also illustrates the court's approach to material disputes of fact in mining cases, recognizing that technical issues regarding underground encroachment require expert evidence from mine surveyors and engineers rather than resolution on the papers. It reinforces the principle that applicants for interdicts must demonstrate credible evidence of irreparable harm and cannot rely on exaggerated claims that are contradicted by their own previous conduct.