Fidelity Printers and Refiners (Private) Limited, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe, held a mining claim known as Mirage 3 Mine registered under Certificate Number 18132. On 8 January 2021, the applicant voluntarily wrote to the first and second respondents (Minister of Mines and Mining Development and Provincial Mining Director for Midlands Province) seeking information about arrears in statutory payments. On 11 January 2021, the second respondent responded informing the applicant for the first time that its claim had been forfeited on 5 June 2020, without any prior notice. On 2 February 2021, hooligans purportedly acting on behalf of the third respondent (Jonah Nyevero), who had been awarded a Special Mining Grant over the land, forcibly attended the applicant's mining operations and issued an illegal oral eviction notice demanding the applicant vacate within 48 hours. The applicant had never been notified of the forfeiture, given an opportunity to make representations, or served with any court order.
The court granted both interim and final relief. Final order: (1) The forfeiture of Mirage 3 Mine registered under Certificate Number 18132 purportedly done on 5 June 2020 was set aside; (2) Any act done by the first and second respondents further to the forfeiture, whose effect was to alienate the area under Mirage 3 Mine, was declared invalid and null and void; (3) Respondents who opposed the application were ordered to pay costs on an attorney and own client scale, jointly and severally. Interim relief pending return day: (1) Suspension of the forfeiture decision; (2) Suspension of the award of the Special Mining Grant to the third respondent; (3) Interdict restraining the third respondent and his agents from entering the land or disturbing the applicant's mining operations.
Administrative authorities exercising statutory powers must comply with the principles of natural justice and the requirements of the Administrative Justice Act [Chapter 10:28]. Where an administrative authority intends to forfeit mining rights under section 220 of the Mines and Minerals Act [Chapter 21:05], it must provide the affected party with adequate notice of the intended forfeiture and afford that party an opportunity to make representations before making an adverse decision. Forfeiture of mining rights effected clandestinely, without notice to the holder and without affording them a hearing, is unlawful and subject to being set aside. Any subsequent acts done pursuant to an unlawful forfeiture, including the award of mining rights to third parties, are invalid and null and void. A party retains locus standi to challenge the forfeiture of their mining rights while they remain in possession, even if they were not notified of the purported forfeiture.
The court observed that there is nothing unreasonable or impractical about simply sending a notice to an affected party and inviting them to be heard before an adverse administrative decision is made. The court noted that there is no such thing as automatic forfeiture or forfeiture by operation of law under the Mines and Minerals Act - the Minister makes administrative decisions which must be exercised according to law after following due process. The court commented that the third respondent 'stands or falls by the decision of the first and second respondents' and cannot take the law into his own hands. TAGU J also observed that the court has inherent jurisdiction to determine any matter which is not precluded or forbidden by law, and can set aside a special permit if it was unlawfully issued.
This case is significant in Zimbabwean administrative and mining law as it reinforces the fundamental principles of administrative justice, particularly the audi alteram partem rule (right to be heard). It establishes that administrative authorities, including mining officials, cannot forfeit property rights without affording affected parties notice and an opportunity to make representations, regardless of statutory powers. The case demonstrates that courts will not hesitate to set aside administrative decisions made clandestinely or in violation of natural justice principles. It affirms that administrative decisions must comply with both the specific statute (Mines and Minerals Act) and overarching administrative law principles enshrined in the Administrative Justice Act. The judgment also clarifies that parties retain locus standi to challenge administrative decisions even after purported forfeiture if they were not properly notified. The case is particularly important for protecting property rights and ensuring procedural fairness in the mining sector.