Falcon Gold Zimbabwe Limited and Inyamazane Gold (Private) Limited v Minister of Mines and Mining Development N.O.

The first applicant is a mining company that was granted mining title to several claims (collectively known as "Antelope") 25 years prior to this application. The second applicant held a tribute agreement to mine the first applicant's claims. On 17 November 2021, the respondent (Minister of Mines) issued a show cause notice to the first applicant dated stamped 9 February 2022, indicating intention to cancel mining rights due to failure to declare output production in terms of section 400(1)(a) of the Mines and Minerals Act. The first applicant responded through its legal practitioners. On 21 April 2022, the respondent cancelled the mining titles, noting that despite holding titles for over 25 years, no output had been declared. The respondent rejected excuses including alleged illegal invasions starting in 2019 and tribute agreements. The applicants sought judicial review of both the show cause notice and the cancellation decision.

• Whether section 400(1)(a) of the Mines and Minerals Act was correctly applied where mining operations had allegedly not commenced
• Whether the phrase 'commencement of mining operations' includes the period after obtaining mining title and inspection certificates
• Whether the respondent acted unlawfully or with gross irregularity in cancelling the mining claims
• Whether the respondent had an ulterior motive in cancelling the claims
• Whether the second applicant (tribute holder) had a right to be heard before cancellation
• Whether the respondent complied with the requirements of the Administrative Justice Act

The application was dismissed.

1. Mining operations are deemed to have commenced when a miner obtains mining title and begins work in connection with the mining block, including activities necessary for obtaining inspection certificates under sections 197-199 of the Mines and Minerals Act, even if actual mineral extraction has not yet begun. 2. Section 400(1)(a) of the Mines and Minerals Act empowers the Minister to cancel mining rights where a miner has failed to declare output after commencement of mining operations, and the 25-year holding of title without declaring output constitutes sufficient grounds for cancellation. 3. Under section 400(1)(a), the Minister is only required to serve written notice on "the miner" (the person actually carrying on mining work or the holder of rights), and is not obligated to separately notify tribute holders of intention to cancel mining claims.

The court noted that while the Mines and Minerals Act does not contain a specific definition of "mining operations," the definition of "mining purposes" as "the purpose of obtaining or extracting any mineral by any mode or method or any purpose directly or indirectly connected therewith or incidental thereafter" is sufficiently wide to provide guidance. The court also observed that if the first applicant believed the second applicant (tribute holder) needed to be heard, it could have invited the tribute holder to submit representations, and in any event, the first applicant's representations adequately encapsulated the second applicant's concerns. The court further noted that allegations of improper motive raised for the first time in heads of argument, without proper evidentiary foundation, cannot be entertained as heads of argument are meant to contain legal submissions, not evidence.

This case clarifies the interpretation of "commencement of mining operations" under the Mines and Minerals Act, establishing that mining operations are deemed to have commenced upon obtaining mining title and inspection certificates, not only when actual extraction begins. It confirms the Minister's broad powers under section 400(1)(a) to cancel mining rights for failure to declare output over an extended period (25 years). The judgment also clarifies that tribute holders do not have independent procedural rights to be heard in cancellation proceedings under section 400(1)(a), as the notice requirement applies only to "the miner" as defined in the Act. This has implications for the enforcement of mining obligations and the protection of tribute agreements in Zimbabwean mining law.