Obert Mpofu in his capacity as the former Minister of Mines and Mining Development and Mrs. Eunice Kahonde in her capacity as the former Mining Commissioner for Harare v Chiroswa Minerals (Pvt) Ltd and Base Minerals Zimbabwe (Pvt) Ltd

The applicants sought to set aside writs of personal attachment and committal to prison issued against them on 6 January 2014. The first applicant was the former Minister of Mines and Mining Development, and the second applicant was the Mining Commissioner for Harare. The matter originated from a previous judgment by Patel J (HH 261/2011) which ordered, inter alia, that the Minister refer a tribute agreement to the Mining Commissioner for approval and registration in accordance with Part XVII of the Mines and Minerals Act. The Minister complied by referring the matter. However, the Mining Commissioner refused to register the tribute agreement on the grounds that it had expired. The respondents (Chiroswa Minerals and Base Minerals) alleged non-compliance and obtained an enforcement order from Takuva J in HC 5208/13 authorizing the commitment of both applicants to prison for 30 days for contempt of court. The respondents themselves had acknowledged in their founding affidavit that the Minister had complied with the order by referring the matter, but argued the Mining Commissioner was being "mischievous" in refusing registration.

• Whether the first applicant (Minister) was in contempt of court for failing to comply with Patel J's order to refer the tribute agreement to the Mining Commissioner
• Whether the second applicant (Mining Commissioner) was in contempt of court for refusing to register an expired tribute agreement
• Whether the order for civil imprisonment was erroneously granted in the absence of the affected parties
• Whether an expired tribute agreement could be registered under Part XVII of the Mines and Minerals Act
• Whether the court could exercise its power under Rule 449 to rescind or vary an order erroneously granted
• Whether imprisonment of the applicants would violate their constitutional right to personal liberty under section 49 of the Constitution

The application was granted with costs at the ordinary scale. The writs of personal attachment and committal to prison issued against the applicants were set aside. The respondents' counter application was dismissed with costs.

The binding legal principles established are: (1) A person cannot be held in contempt of court for failing to comply with a court order when they have in fact complied with what was required of them; (2) An administrative official (such as a Mining Commissioner) who is directed by court order to process an application in accordance with a statute retains the administrative discretion to refuse the application if it does not meet the statutory requirements; (3) An expired tribute agreement is incapable of conferring rights to a tributor and therefore cannot be registered under Part XVII of the Mines and Minerals Act; (4) A court order directing registration of a tribute agreement "in accordance with" a statutory provision implicitly requires compliance with the mandatory requirements of that provision and does not override the statutory framework; (5) Rule 449 permits the court to rescind or vary an order that was erroneously granted in the absence of a party affected thereby; (6) The principle against doubtful penalization requires that a person should not be imprisoned where it is doubtful whether they were in deliberate disobedience of a valid court order, particularly in light of constitutional protections against deprivation of liberty without just cause under section 49 of the Constitution.

The court made several non-binding observations: (1) It noted that it would be "inconceivable" that a judge would intend for an administrative official to register an agreement without conformity with mandatory statutory requirements; (2) The court observed that it would be "premature" to penalize the applicants when the cardinal issue of whether the tribute agreement was registerable was the subject of an appeal; (3) The court commented on the principle of legal policy articulated by Francis Bennion in Statutory Interpretation (1984) at page 609 regarding the principle against doubtful penalization, noting that despite being founded on English law, it finds expression in the Zimbabwean Constitution; (4) The court noted that the order for imprisonment was sought "for the stronger reason" that it involved deprivation of liberty, thereby requiring particular caution before enforcement; (5) The court observed that by the definition in section 283 of the Mines and Minerals Act, a tribute agreement must be capable of conferring a right to mine, which an expired agreement cannot do.

This case is significant in South African and Zimbabwean jurisprudence for several reasons: (1) It demonstrates the limits of contempt of court proceedings and reinforces that a person cannot be held in contempt for failing to do something that is legally impossible or beyond their power; (2) It clarifies that administrative officials retain their statutory discretion even when directed by court order to process applications, and must still comply with mandatory statutory requirements; (3) It emphasizes the constitutional protection of personal liberty under section 49 and the principle that persons should not be penalized under doubtful laws or orders; (4) It illustrates the application of Rule 449 to correct orders erroneously granted in the absence of affected parties, particularly in the context of orders for imprisonment; (5) It confirms that an expired agreement is null and void and incapable of registration under mining legislation; (6) It demonstrates the importance of distinguishing between ministerial acts (merely referring a matter) and administrative discretion (deciding whether to approve registration based on statutory requirements).