Matupula Hunters (Pvt) Ltd v Tsholotsho Rural District Council and Others

On 7 January 2014, the applicant (Matupula Hunters) entered into a 5-year agreement with the 1st respondent (Tsholotsho Rural District Council) granting it sole and exclusive rights to conduct all hunting and photographic safaris in Tsholotsho North Safari Concession Area, ending 31 December 2018. The 2nd respondent (Lodzi Hunters) had similar exclusive rights for Tsholotsho South. In February 2015, the 1st respondent obtained an additional quota from the Government for constructing a soccer stadium in Tsholotsho. In September 2016, the applicant discovered that the 2nd respondent was conducting hunting safaris in Tsholotsho North. Despite numerous meetings and correspondence, in March 2017 the 1st respondent produced a 5-year contract with the 2nd respondent granting exclusive rights to hunt under the stadium quota in both Tsholotsho North and South. The 1st and 2nd respondents insisted that the applicant could only participate in the stadium quota if it paid amounts demanded by the 2nd respondent. The applicant filed an urgent application for an interdict to prevent the 2nd respondent from hunting in Tsholotsho North.

• Whether the application was urgent and required immediate relief
• Whether the applicant established a prima facie right to exclusive hunting rights in Tsholotsho North
• Whether the applicant's exclusive rights under the CAMPFIRE agreement were limited to CAMPFIRE projects only or extended to all hunting quotas in Tsholotsho North
• Whether the applicant had a well-grounded apprehension of injury
• Whether the applicant had an alternative remedy in damages
• Whether the balance of convenience favoured granting the interim interdict

The court granted the interim interdict: (1) Interdicting the 1st respondent from issuing to the 2nd respondent any hunting permit over land exclusively leased by applicant in Tsholotsho North; and (2) If any permit had already been issued, interdicting the 2nd respondent from carrying out any hunting safaris on the basis of the same, pending confirmation or discharge of the order.

Where a party has been granted exclusive rights to conduct safaris in a defined geographical area under a valid contract, and those exclusive rights are not clearly limited by unambiguous contractual language to specific categories of quotas, the party has a prima facie right to prevent other parties from conducting safaris in that area, even if the competing claim is based on a special government quota. For an interim interdict, the applicant need only establish a prima facie right (not proof on a balance of probabilities), and where the contractual provisions are disputed by both parties, this demonstrates the existence of a prima facie right. An award of damages is not an adequate alternative remedy where the injury is a continuing violation of contractual rights and damages would be difficult to assess due to information asymmetry.

The court observed that it was unclear how the 1st respondent expected both the 2nd respondent and the applicant to operate simultaneously in the same geographical area. The court also noted that the dispute arose from the need to channel natural resources in an area towards the development of that area (stadium construction), suggesting sympathy for developmental objectives while ultimately prioritizing contractual obligations. The court's comment that the threshold test for interim interdicts requires consideration of whether, on the facts before it and having regard to inherent probabilities, the applicant should obtain final relief at trial provides guidance on the standard of proof required.

This case provides guidance on the interpretation of exclusive concession agreements in Zimbabwe's natural resources management context, particularly concerning CAMPFIRE projects and hunting quotas. It illustrates the application of interdict principles in commercial contractual disputes involving competing claims to the same geographical area. The case demonstrates judicial protection of contractual exclusivity rights and highlights the tension between government-issued special quotas and existing exclusive concession agreements. It also reaffirms the flexible and practical approach to determining prima facie rights in interim interdict applications, particularly where contractual provisions are ambiguous.