Kabuyuni Mining Syndicate v Shintan Resources Private Limited and Others

The applicant, Kabuyuni Mining Syndicate, applied for a special grant for coal (application number 10-2025) in Midlands Province covering 1239 hectares following the cancellation of Special Grant number 849 Sengwa Colliery previously held by Rio Zim Limited. The cancellation occurred on 15 August 2025 and Rio Zim's appeal was dismissed. On 28 August 2025, applicant filed an application for a special grant for the benefit of the Gokwe community. On 6 October 2025, applicant discovered mining activities in the disputed area and was shown a court order granted on 2 October 2025 under HCBC 1101/25 by Ndlovu J allowing the first and third respondents to continue mining coal pending a review application (HCH 4881/25) challenging the cancellation of the special grant. Applicant was not cited as a party in those proceedings, nor was Rio Zim Limited or the fourth respondent (Provincial Mining Director). On 7 October 2025, applicant filed an urgent application for rescission of the default judgment, arguing it was an interested party that should have been heard.

• Whether the urgent application for rescission met the requirements for urgency
• Whether a provisional order can be rescinded
• Whether Rule 29(2) of the High Court Rules, 2021 is restricted to variation of judgments or also applies to rescission
• Whether the applicant had locus standi in judicio
• Whether the applicant's litigation was properly authorized
• Whether the applicant was an interested party entitled to be cited in the proceedings under HCBC 1101/25
• Whether non-compliance with a case management order should be condoned
• Whether joinder of the applicant to the review proceedings was appropriate

1. The urgent court application for rescission is granted. 2. The order of the court under case number HCBC1101/25 dated 2 October 2025 is rescinded. 3. The applicant is joined to the review application under case number HCH4881/25. 4. Pending the review application under HCH4881/25, no party may conduct mining activities at the mining location being S849, Gokwe. 5. The Zimbabwe Republic Police uniformed members must continue ensuring strict compliance with paragraph 4. 6. No order as to costs.

A provisional order with final effect that is granted without notice to an interested party may be rescinded as it constitutes a default judgment under Rules 27 and 29 of the High Court Rules, 2021. An applicant for a special grant has sufficient interest in the disputed mining location to be considered an interested party entitled to be cited in proceedings that affect their rights. Where a finite mineral resource is at stake and there are material disputes of fact, the court may in the interests of justice under Rule 7 depart from procedural requirements and order that no party benefit from the resource pending final determination. A party may be joined under Rule 32(12)(b) where their presence is necessary to ensure effectual and complete determination of matters in dispute.

The court observed that each party with interests in a mining location must be accorded an opportunity to be heard in court, and in the interim, no one should benefit from a finite resource where material disputes exist. The court noted that the Zimbabwe Republic Police, given its constitutional mandate under section 219 of the Constitution to maintain law and order, is best placed to ensure no one benefits from the finite resource pending finalization of disputes, rather than private security companies which would protect the interests of the party contracting them. The court expressed the view that where one registers an interest in a mining location, the court is inclined to grant rescission of judgment. The court also suggested that a syndicate is not a body corporate and that a resolution signed by one member does not necessarily invalidate the resolution.

This case is significant in Zimbabwean mining law and civil procedure for establishing that provisional orders with final effect can be rescinded when granted without notice to an interested party, thereby constituting a default judgment. The judgment clarifies the exception to the general rule that provisional orders are not rescindable. It emphasizes the importance of citing interested parties in mining disputes, particularly where finite mineral resources are involved. The case also demonstrates the court's willingness to apply Rule 7 of the High Court Rules, 2021, to depart from procedural rules in the interests of justice where mineral resources could be irreversibly depleted. The judgment reinforces that an application for a special grant creates sufficient interest to warrant participation in proceedings affecting the disputed mining location.