Francis Mugomba v Mayor Rimbo and Rimbo Minerals (Pvt) Ltd and Mining Commissioner

The plaintiff was executor of his late father's estate, which owned a farm purchased in 2005. The first and second defendants sought to establish a milling plant and conduct mining operations on the plaintiff's farm, having registered a mill and compound site in 2007 which was later converted to mining blocks in March 2012. The defendants claimed they had consent from the plaintiff's late father to prospect and mine. The plaintiff alleged the defendants failed to follow proper legal procedures, including failing to provide him with a siting works plan or obtain proper Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) approval. The plaintiff sought to have the defendants' mining activities declared unlawful and to prevent interference with his agricultural activities. The matter was initially brought as an application but was referred to trial due to material disputes of fact.

• Whether the defendants followed all necessary procedures for registration of mining claims and subsequent conversion into blocks
• Whether the defendants complied with requirements to submit a siting works plan to the Mining Commissioner and landowner
• Whether the defendants obtained proper Environmental Impact Assessment approval
• Whether proper notice was given to the landowner/occupier before exercising prospecting rights under section 38(2)(b) of the Mines and Minerals Act
• Whether land cleared by the plaintiff for agricultural purposes was cleared before or after registration of the blocks
• Whether the cleared land was suitable for farming and whether it interfered with lawful mining operations

1) The defendants are precluded from carrying out any mining operations without complying with the law; 2) The 3rd defendant (Mining Commissioner) is directed to ensure that all legal processes are carried out before the defendants can resume operations; 3) The defendants shall pay costs of suit.

Mining operations cannot lawfully proceed without compliance with the procedural requirements of the Mines and Minerals Act, including: (1) submission of a siting works plan to the Mining Commissioner which must be passed to the landowner for comment; (2) obtaining proper Environmental Impact Assessment approval; (3) compliance with Environmental Management Agency requirements. The failure to produce evidence of such compliance when challenged places the onus on the mining operator to prove compliance. While failure to give notice under section 38(2)(b) does not invalidate pegging under section 38(7), and while mineral rights vest in the state such that landowners cannot refuse prospecting, miners must still follow all other statutory procedures before conducting mining operations. Payment of fees for environmental review does not constitute proof that the assessment was carried out.

The court observed that the farm in question was generally for ranching rather than cropping, and that the plaintiff could carry on farming activities through cattle ranching. The court noted that the plaintiff's evidence regarding land clearance was fraught with inconsistencies, suggesting the land was cleared recently to cloud the issues at trial. The court emphasized the need for landowners and farmers to coexist peacefully and maintain good relations so that both business activities can thrive. The court noted it could not over-emphasize this need for peaceful coexistence. The court also observed that section 239 of the Mines and Minerals Act permits certain activities (such as dumps other than tailings and residences for up to 32 workers) without an approved plan, but this provision is not applicable where no plan has been lodged with the Mining Commissioner. The court indicated that the Mining Commissioner should visit the farm to ascertain the correct facts on the ground, particularly regarding distances between mining operations and the homestead.

This case clarifies the procedural requirements under the Mines and Minerals Act Chapter 21:05 for lawful mining operations on private land in Zimbabwe. It emphasizes that while mineral rights vest in the state and landowners cannot refuse prospecting, miners must comply with statutory requirements including: submission of siting works plans to the Mining Commissioner, obtaining Environmental Impact Assessment approval, and giving proper notice to landowners/occupiers. The case demonstrates the court's willingness to use its powers under section 345 to refer mining disputes to the Mining Commissioner for investigation. It also addresses the balance between mining rights and landowner rights, including the landowner's right under section 180(12) to graze stock or cultivate surface land provided it does not interfere with proper working of the mine, and the restrictions on prospecting near homesteads and cultivated land under section 31.