Felix Nathan Mukonowengwe v Maka Mining Syndicate and Others

On 24 May 2023, Dr Aikurauone, an agent of the first respondent (Maka Mining Syndicate), informed the applicant that the first respondent was granted Special Grant (SG) No. 9039 to commence mining activities on the applicant's Nantera Farm. The applicant discovered that the first respondent had already commenced mining activities on parts of his farm including his plantation, grazing areas and paddocks. The applicant alleged he was never advised about the Special Grant as the owner of the farm, and that the first respondent started mining operations without an Environmental Impact Assessment Certificate. The applicant sought an interdict to stop the mining activities and cancellation of the Special Grant.

• Whether the applicant exhausted domestic remedies available under the Environmental Management Act before approaching the court
• Whether the court should exercise its discretion to hear the matter despite the availability of domestic remedies
• Whether the relief sought was properly pleaded
• Whether an interdict should be granted to stop mining activities on the applicant's farm
• Whether Special Grant No. 9039 should be cancelled

The application was struck off the roll with no order as to costs.

Where domestic remedies are available under statute that are capable of providing effective redress, a litigant must exhaust those remedies before approaching the court, unless there are good reasons for not doing so. In mining and environmental disputes, sections 10 and 114 of the Environmental Management Act provide domestic remedies that must be explored before seeking judicial intervention. The court should only intervene in cases where it is obvious that domestic remedies will not do justice. An application that does not demonstrate that available domestic remedies have been exhausted is premature and will be struck off the roll.

The court observed that it is not right for agencies with expert knowledge such as the Environmental Management Agency to abrogate their responsibilities by simply referring matters to court without taking any action themselves. The court questioned what the point of having expert institutions is if they refer matters to court without making an effort to solve problems from their expert vantage point. The court stated it would decline to be abused in such circumstances. The court also noted that the intention of the legislature in providing domestic remedies must be respected by the courts, and officials charged with authority to determine domestic appeals or reviews must be allowed to do their work before the court intervenes.

This case reinforces the principle in Zimbabwean law that litigants must exhaust domestic remedies before approaching the courts, particularly in mining and environmental disputes. It emphasizes the role of specialist administrative agencies like the Environmental Management Agency in resolving disputes within their areas of expertise before courts intervene. The judgment demonstrates judicial deference to administrative processes and the importance of following statutory procedures for environmental protection and mining regulation. It serves as a reminder that courts will not allow parties to bypass administrative remedies that are capable of providing effective redress, and that expert institutions should not abdicate their responsibilities by simply referring matters to court without taking action themselves.