Ktulu Resources v Minister of Mines and Mining Development and The Provincial Mining Director for Mashonaland Central N.O

The Applicant, previously registered as Kilright Industries (Private) Limited, was the registered holder of mining claims known as Beryl Rose 118 to 124 and Knoxa 6 to 8. In 2013 and 2018, the Respondents issued Forfeiture Notices (No. 1 of 2013 and No. 1 of 2018) forfeiting these mining claims. The forfeiture was effected without direct notice to the Applicant and without affording it an opportunity to make representations. The notices were merely posted on a notice board at the Ministry of Mines offices in Bindura. The Applicant believed the claims had been reinstated pursuant to a High Court order under case number HC 7901/19 and approached the Second Respondent to pay inspection fees, but was advised the claims remained forfeited and the court order did not apply to them. In November 2024, the Applicant wrote to the Second Respondent seeking clarification and reinstatement but received no substantive response. The Applicant challenged the validity of the forfeiture on grounds of procedural unfairness under the Administrative Justice Act.

• Whether publication of forfeiture notices on a notice board, without direct notification to the Applicant, satisfied the requirements of procedural fairness under the Administrative Justice Act [Chapter 10:28]
• Whether the forfeiture of mining claims was lawful and complied with statutory and constitutional requirements
• Whether the affected party is entitled to reinstatement of the forfeited mining claims

1. The Respondents' decision to forfeit the Applicant's mining claims (Beryl Rose 118-124 and Knoxa 6, 7 and 8) was set aside in terms of section 4(2)(a) and (e) of the Administrative Justice Act. 2. The Respondents were ordered within 7 days to reinstate the Applicant's name on the claims' card and all official mining documents. 3. The Respondents were ordered to allow the Applicant an opportunity to settle all outstanding inspection fees up to the date of the order. 4. The Respondents were ordered to pay costs on an ordinary scale, jointly and severally.

Forfeiture of mining claims constitutes deprivation of an existing right and cannot occur automatically. While section 272 of the Mines and Minerals Act [Chapter 21:05] permits posting of forfeiture notices on notice boards, section 3(2) of the Administrative Justice Act [Chapter 10:28] requires administrative authorities to: (a) give adequate notice of the nature and purpose of proposed administrative action to affected parties; and (b) afford a reasonable opportunity to make representations. Where an affected party is identifiable and directly contactable (as evidenced by addresses on registration certificates), posting notices solely on a notice board without direct communication to the affected party does not constitute adequate notice and fails to meet the standards of procedural fairness required by the Administrative Justice Act. Such failure renders the forfeiture unlawful and void ab initio.

The court observed that the Applicant did not deny its failure to pay annual inspection fees, but noted that the Administrative Justice Act requires administrative authorities to afford miners an opportunity to remedy defaults, such as by paying outstanding fees, before effecting forfeiture. The court also noted that the respondents raised a point on the day of hearing regarding the applicant's failure to provide an address for communication, but held this was impermissible as it was not raised in the notice of opposition and constituted an ambush. The court distinguished between 'notices to forfeit' and 'notices of intention to forfeit', suggesting the latter would be more appropriate to afford opportunity to remedy defaults.

This case reinforces the principle that administrative actions resulting in deprivation of property rights must comply with both statutory requirements and constitutional standards of procedural fairness under the Administrative Justice Act. It establishes that in the context of mining claims forfeiture, administrative authorities cannot rely solely on posting notices on notice boards where the affected party is identifiable and contactable. The judgment strengthens the protection of property rights in the mining sector by requiring direct communication and opportunity to be heard before forfeiture. It applies and follows the Supreme Court precedent in Fidelity Printers & Refiners regarding the inadequacy of notice board posting as the sole means of communication for forfeiture of mining titles.