Joubert Crushers and Transport (Pvt) Ltd and Joubert Mining (Pvt) Ltd v Andries Hendrick Joubert (Senior) and Mining Commissioner N.O (Manicaland Province) and Minister of Mines and Mining Development N.O

The applicants and first respondent were engaged in ongoing legal disputes relating to mining rights. In November 2025, the parties appeared before the court in case HCH 2953/25, where applicants sought declaratory relief regarding ownership of a quarry mine situated at subdivision A of subdivision D of Dora Farm, and an interdict preventing the first respondent from accessing the quarry mine. The dispute centered around the ownership and location of SHEERLUCK MINE Reg No 22492BM vis-à-vis the first applicant's Quarry Mine (Joubert Crushers). The first respondent opposed the application and raised preliminary points including prescription and failure to exhaust domestic remedies. After parties argued only the preliminary points, judgment was reserved. While the court was preparing judgment, applicants filed HCH 3/26 seeking leave to reopen proceedings to file a supplementary affidavit with newly discovered documents (a duplicate Certificate of Registration for Sheerluck mine and an affidavit from an approved prospector), and for a stay of the impending judgment. Applicants argued these documents showed the location and nature of first respondent's mining activities and went to the "heart of the matter."

• Whether the court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction to reopen proceedings after argument but before judgment
• Whether the additional evidence sought to be introduced was material to the issues before the court
• Whether good cause had been shown to allow the filing of additional material after conclusion of arguments
• Whether the new evidence was capable of resolving the preliminary points in dispute

The application was dismissed with costs.

A court retains inherent jurisdiction under section 171 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe to reopen proceedings after argument but before judgment where the interests of justice demand. However, for a litigant to successfully introduce additional material after conclusion of arguments, the evidence must satisfy the test of materiality - it must be capable of resolving the specific issues before the court. Evidence relating to the merits of a matter cannot be introduced when only preliminary points have been argued and are pending determination. The materiality requirement demands that the additional evidence must answer the questions raised in the preliminary points under consideration, not issues that may arise at a later stage of the proceedings.

The court observed that the parties were engaged in "seemingly endless legal battles" and that the main application HCH 2953/25 was "more than one thousand two hundred pages long." The court also noted that there was no basis for an order of costs at a higher scale in the circumstances of this application, suggesting that while the application failed, it did not warrant punitive costs.

This case reinforces important principles regarding the court's inherent jurisdiction to control its own processes and the requirements for reopening proceedings after argument but before judgment. It demonstrates that while courts have discretion to allow additional evidence to be placed before them after conclusion of arguments, such evidence must be material to the specific issues under consideration. The case establishes that evidence relating to the merits of a dispute cannot be introduced at a stage where only preliminary points are being determined, maintaining procedural clarity and efficiency in litigation. It also emphasizes the principle that substance should not be sacrificed for form, but equally that procedural requirements must be properly observed.