Mixnote Investments (Pvt) Ltd v Provincial Mining Director and Another

The applicant and 2nd respondent were involved in a mining boundary dispute over mining claims. On 12 December 2018, both parties attended a hearing before the 1st respondent (Provincial Mining Director) at Gwanda, where they were required to present maps, inspection certificates and relevant documents. It was resolved that a surveyor would be appointed to survey the boundaries of the mining claims, and both parties continued their mining activities undisturbed. However, on 25 April 2019, without prior warning or notice to the applicant, the 1st respondent issued a letter directing that all mining operations by both parties cease within the disputed area pending finalization of the dispute. This directive was issued after the 2nd respondent complained that the applicant was mining within the disputed area. The issue of stoppage of mining activities had never been raised at the Gwanda hearing.

• Whether the 1st respondent's decision to order stoppage of mining operations without affording the applicant a hearing violated the principle of audi alteram partem
• Whether the 1st respondent complied with the requirements of the Administrative Justice Act (Chapter 10:28) in making the directive
• Whether the 1st respondent properly exercised its discretionary power under the Mines and Minerals Act (Chapter 21:05)

The court granted the order as prayed for: (1) The 1st respondent's letter dated 25 April 2019 and its directions therein were revoked for failure to comply with proper Administrative Justice; (2) No order as to costs.

An administrative authority exercising powers under the Mines and Minerals Act must comply with section 3 of the Administrative Justice Act and the principle of audi alteram partem by affording all parties to a mining dispute an opportunity to make proper representations before making substantive decisions that affect their rights, such as ordering the stoppage of mining operations. Failure to afford parties the right to be heard before making such decisions constitutes improper exercise of discretionary power and violates the requirements of administrative justice.

The court observed that in recent times, before parties are properly investigated and disputes concluded, decisions are being made by the Provincial Mining Director without proper hearing. The court commented that mining disputes must be determined as swiftly as possible and that it is the function of the Provincial Mining Director to grant decisions on reasonable grounds. The court also noted that no cogent reasons were given for the stoppage order and no time frames were stipulated, suggesting that even where a hearing is held, administrative decisions should be supported by reasons and clarity as to their duration and scope.

This case is significant in Zimbabwean administrative law as it reinforces the fundamental principle of natural justice - audi alteram partem - in the context of mining disputes. It establishes that administrative authorities, particularly the Provincial Mining Director, must afford parties the right to be heard before making decisions that affect their rights, including the stoppage of mining operations. The judgment emphasizes that administrative decisions must comply with the Administrative Justice Act and that discretionary powers must be exercised properly with cogent reasons provided. The case serves as an important reminder that administrative bodies cannot make unilateral decisions affecting parties' rights without following proper procedural requirements and affording affected parties an opportunity to make representations.