Luckson Sithole v Smelly Dube and Provincial Mining Director, Midlands N.O.

The applicant held a mining certificate for a mining block called Luck Gold in Shurugwi, issued on 17 June 2021 (Registration No. 31886). He erected mining beacons around 10 July 2021. The 1st respondent claimed that the applicant had encroached onto her mining areas, which she held through a tribute agreement with Ngezi Mining Company for Tebekwe 45 (Registration No. 21351) and Tebekwe 48 (Registration No. 21354). The respective areas claimed by both parties were adjacent to each other. From 20 September 2021, the 1st respondent blocked the access road, erected a fence, and her security manager allegedly stopped the applicant's employees from operations and fired three gunshots in a threatening gesture. The applicant sought intervention from the 2nd respondent (Provincial Mining Director) and police to no avail. The applicant approached the court urgently seeking an interdict to prevent the 1st respondent from interfering with his mining operations.

• Whether the applicant satisfied the requirements for an interdict
• Whether the applicant established a clear or prima facie right to the mining claim
• Whether there was a well-grounded apprehension of irreparable harm
• Whether there was an absence of alternative remedy
• Whether the balance of convenience favoured the applicant
• Whether the matter should be referred to the Mining Commissioner for investigation under sections 345 and 346 of the Mines and Minerals Act

The court granted the interdict as prayed for by the applicant, save that paragraph 3 of the interim relief dealing with costs was excised. The 1st respondent was interdicted from interfering with the applicant's mining operations at Luck Gold. Costs were reserved for determination at the return date.

Where an applicant holds a valid mining registration certificate with specified coordinates and demarcated beacons, this establishes a prima facie right sufficient to ground an interdict against interference with mining operations. In mining disputes involving precious minerals, there is a well-grounded apprehension of irreparable harm due to the risk of depletion of the mineral resources. Where a respondent alleges encroachment but fails to provide coordinates for their own claims and fails to specify which of their claims is allegedly encroached upon, this does not defeat the applicant's prima facie right based on a valid registration certificate. The balance of convenience favours protecting the holder of a registration certificate who needs to demonstrate work on the ground to obtain an inspection certificate.

The court noted that this was one of many matters crossing a judge's desk in the mining area wherein mining operations have been opened up to syndicates, conglomerates and individuals. The court observed that while the 1st respondent and counsel suggested the matter should be referred to the Mining Commissioner under sections 345 and 346 of the Mines and Minerals Act for investigation and report, this did not preclude the court from exercising its jurisdiction to grant interim relief where the requirements for an interdict were satisfied. The court indicated that whether the 2nd respondent (Provincial Mining Director) could assist the parties to determine where Luck Gold extends from and ends was "another matter altogether" from the question of interim protection. The court also observed that costs in a provisional order are generally not awarded at the interim stage but determined on the return date, and found nothing unusual in the matter to depart from this general position.

This case is significant in Zimbabwean mining law jurisprudence as it clarifies the application of interdict requirements in mining disputes, particularly encroachment disputes between adjacent mining claims. It establishes that where an applicant holds a valid registration certificate with demarcated coordinates and beacons, this establishes a prima facie right sufficient to obtain interim protection. The case also demonstrates the court's willingness to grant interdicts in mining disputes even where the Mining Commissioner could potentially investigate the matter, particularly where irreparable harm to mining operations is threatened. It reinforces the principle that precious mineral resources require urgent protection due to their risk of depletion. The case is relevant to the broader context of mining disputes in Zimbabwe where operations have been opened up to syndicates, conglomerates and individuals, resulting in increased boundary and encroachment disputes.