Fidelity Printers & Refiners (Pvt) Ltd v Minister of Mines & Mining Development N.O. and Others

Fidelity Printers & Refiners (Pvt) Ltd, a government-owned company through the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe, held Certificate of Registration No 8132 for Mirage 3 gold mine in Kwe Kwe, Midlands Province. After obtaining the first inspection certificate upon registration, Fidelity Printers failed to renew its inspection certificates or pay renewal fees for five years, operating under the mistaken belief it was exempt. In June 2020, the Provincial Mining Director forfeited the mine for non-compliance with section 260 of the Mines and Minerals Act. The forfeiture notice was posted on the notice board outside the Provincial Mining Director's office. In July 2020, the mine was relocated to Jona Nyevera under Special Grant No 8202. Fidelity Printers only became aware of the forfeiture in January 2021 when it wrote to the Provincial Mining Director seeking information about outstanding fees in preparation for selling the mine to Caesar Zvayi. Shortly thereafter, persons acting on Nyevera's instructions arrived at the mine demanding that Fidelity Printers vacate within 48 hours. Three interconnected cases were consolidated: HC 85/21 (Fidelity Printers seeking to set aside the forfeiture), HC 55/21 from Bulawayo (later HC 810/21 in Harare, with Nyevera seeking to restrain Fidelity Printers from removing gold ore).

• Whether the Provincial Mining Director was required to give Fidelity Printers individual notice before declaring the mine forfeited
• Whether the forfeiture was void or voidable for failure to comply with the Administrative Justice Act's requirement of notice and opportunity to make representations
• Whether posting a forfeiture notice on a notice board constitutes adequate notice under the Mines and Minerals Act
• Whether the audi alteram partem rule (right to be heard) applies to forfeitures of mining locations under the Mines and Minerals Act
• Whether the Special Grant to Nyevera was valid given the alleged invalidity of the forfeiture

i) The Provisional Order issued in HC 85/21 on 17 February 2021 is discharged. ii) The forfeiture of Registration Certificate No 18132 in favour of Fidelity Printers over Mirage 3 mine on 4 June 2020 is confirmed. iii) Special Grant No 8202 in favour of Jona Nyevera over the mine is confirmed. iv) Fidelity Printers and Caesar Zvayi, their employees, assignees, agents or representatives, shall not remove any gold ore sands from the mine. v) GMI Red Baron is barred from processing any gold ore sands supplied by Fidelity Printers and Zvayi. vi) GMI Red Baron shall produce a record of all gold ore sands received from the mine after the grant of the Provisional Order in HC 85/21. vii) Costs awarded against Fidelity Printers jointly and severally with Zvayi.

The binding legal principle established is that under the Mines and Minerals Act (Chapter 21:05), posting a forfeiture notice on the notice board outside the mining commissioner's office constitutes adequate legal notice to holders of mining blocks whose registration has been forfeited for failure to obtain inspection certificates. Section 272 of the Act provides a self-contained mechanism for natural justice by allowing the former holder 21 days from the date of posting to apply for revocation of the forfeiture, provided the prescribed fee is paid and the necessary inspection certificate or protection certificate is obtained. This statutory mechanism satisfies the requirements of the Administrative Justice Act and the audi alteram partem principle. Individual notice by registered mail or personal communication is not required for forfeiture of mining blocks (as distinct from mining leases under section 263). The obligation rests on the holder of a mining location to proactively ensure compliance with annual inspection certificate requirements under sections 197-199 of the Act.

The court observed that the audi alteram partem rule and legitimate expectation principle are not absolute and may be excluded where a statute authorizes ex parte action in emergencies or where there is sufficient interval between decision and implementation during which a fair hearing occurs. The court cited with approval the principle from Sachs v Minister of Justice that "Sacred though the maxim is held to be, Parliament is free to violate it" when the statutory interpretation excludes its implication. The court noted that section 3(3) of the Administrative Justice Act itself provides for departure from hearing requirements where the enactment expressly provides otherwise or where departure is reasonable and justifiable under the circumstances. The court commented that it would be impractical and unworkable to require the Provincial Mining Director to issue personal notices or letters of demand to individual miners who may be in default of renewal fees. The court remarked on the context of COVID-19 lockdown restrictions affecting court operations and the use of Practice Directions allowing urgent chamber applications to be determined on papers without oral argument.

This case is significant in Zimbabwean mining law as it clarifies the procedure for forfeiture of mining locations and the application of administrative justice principles in the mining context. It establishes that the Mines and Minerals Act contains its own self-contained mechanism for compliance with natural justice principles through the notice board posting system and the 21-day period for applications to revoke forfeiture. The judgment confirms that miners have a continuing statutory obligation to ensure compliance with inspection certificate requirements and cannot rely on assumptions of exemption. It demonstrates that the audi alteram partem rule can be satisfied through statutory mechanisms that provide opportunity for affected parties to respond, rather than requiring individual pre-decision notice in all cases. The case also illustrates the principle that government ownership of an entity does not exempt it from compliance with general mining law requirements.