The applicant (Goodluck) was the registered owner of a mining claim known as Mzika 6, registered under certificate number 39530 on 14 September 1998. The first respondent (Panda) obtained a prospecting licence from the District Administrator on 21 July 2017, with approval from the second respondent (Provincial Mining Director). After a verification exercise on 24 July 2017, Panda registered its claim under number 48520 on 10 January 2018. Panda placed workers on site on 31 December 2017 to clear bushes and obtain samples. Goodluck alleged that Panda invaded its claim on 18 January 2018 by mounting mining equipment, threatening workers, removing boundary beacons from 1998, and illegally mining gold. The court ordered an inspection in loco on 30 January 2018, with a comprehensive report submitted by the second respondent. The inspection revealed that Goodluck's registered claim and Panda's registered claim were approximately 160m apart, but Goodluck had unilaterally adjusted its beacons using temporary markers to encroach into Panda's claim area, expanding from 10 hectares to 13 hectares.
The application for an interim interdict was dismissed with costs. The court directed that Goodluck must restrict its operations within the boundary beacon positions marked by the Mine Surveyor Matabeleland North on 7 February 2018 during the ground visit.
An applicant seeking an interim interdict to protect mining rights must demonstrate ownership or rights based on proper registration with mining authorities. Where an inspection in loco reveals that the applicant has unilaterally altered boundary beacons to expand beyond the registered boundaries without approval from the mining authorities, the applicant cannot establish the requisite clear right or prima facie right to the disputed area. Mining rights are defined by the registered coordinates and boundaries as reflected in the registration certificate and filed with the Ministry of Mines, and parties cannot unilaterally extend their claims beyond those registered boundaries. Long-term mining activity in an area does not establish a legal right where the area falls outside the properly registered boundaries.
The court noted that Goodluck's belated claim that it had a prima facie right based on mining in the area for more than 15 years had no merit because that was not the case it brought before the court. The court observed that the temporary beacons found were fresh, suggesting recent rather than long-standing occupation. The judgment also commented on the application being 'one of those urgent chamber applications pregnant with disputes of fact,' highlighting the challenges such applications present and the utility of the inspection in loco procedure in resolving such factual disputes.
This case demonstrates the importance of proper procedures in mining claims registration and the consequences of attempting to unilaterally alter registered boundaries. It illustrates the court's willingness to use inspection in loco procedures under Rule 246 to resolve factual disputes in mining disputes. The judgment reinforces that mining rights are defined by proper registration with mining authorities, and that long-term occupation or mining activity does not create rights beyond those reflected in the registration certificate. It also clarifies the strict requirements for interim interdicts in mining disputes, particularly the need to establish a clear or prima facie right to the area in dispute based on proper registration.