Kanjee Investments (Private) Ltd and 18 Others v Valman Mining Syndicate and Others

The applicants (Kanjee Investments and 18 others) sought cancellation of mining claims registered by respondents within the boundaries of Valleydale and Cromlet Townships and eviction of the respondents from those areas. The application proceeded against the third respondent (Thomas Mukwindidza) and sixth respondent (Provincial Mining Director) only, as other respondents' matters had been finalized earlier. The third respondent held a prospecting licence for Stand 6 Valleydale Township, registered in the name of his father Kenneth Mukwindidza. Applicants alleged that the third respondent's mining operations were within 90-450 metres radius of their properties and within township boundaries, making such operations unlawful. The registration of the mining claim was allegedly done by the sixth respondent without applicants' consent. Applicants relied on a Google map showing the boundaries and mining operations. The third respondent contended he was prospecting on his own land and had not infringed applicants' rights.

• Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain the matter or whether it falls under the Administrative Court's jurisdiction in terms of section 32 of the Mines and Minerals Act
• Whether there are material disputes of fact that cannot be resolved on the papers
• Whether the mining claims should be cancelled under section 50 of the Mines and Minerals Act
• Whether the land in question is open to prospecting or falls within prohibited areas under section 31(1)(c) of the Mines and Minerals Act

The application was struck off. The applicants were ordered to bear the costs on an ordinary scale.

Where section 32 of the Mines and Minerals Act [Chapter 21:05] applies to a dispute between a holder of a prospecting licence and a landowner as to whether land is open to prospecting or not, such matter must be referred to the Administrative Court for decision. Section 32 constitutes a limitation to the High Court's jurisdiction under section 345 of the Act, which is expressly subject to provisions "otherwise provided in this Act". The High Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain applications that fall squarely within the purview of section 32 of the Mines and Minerals Act.

The court noted that section 31(1)(c) of the Mines and Minerals Act prohibits prospecting within the surveyed limits of any city, town, township or village or within a belt of 50 metres outside such limits. The court observed that this provision supported its understanding of section 32's application to the dispute. The court also noted that the sixth respondent (Provincial Mining Director) indicated that proper procedures under section 50 for cancellation of mining claims must be followed, which ends with gazetting of the cancellation, and due process must be followed. The court deemed it unnecessary to address the point in limine regarding material disputes of fact or the merits of the case given its finding on jurisdiction.

This case clarifies the jurisdictional boundaries between the High Court and the Administrative Court in mining disputes under the Mines and Minerals Act [Chapter 21:05]. It establishes that disputes between prospecting licence holders and landowners regarding whether land is open to prospecting fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Administrative Court under section 32, thereby limiting the otherwise broad jurisdiction conferred on the High Court by section 345. The case demonstrates the importance of identifying the correct forum for mining-related disputes and the principle that specific statutory provisions may oust the general jurisdiction of the High Court.