Peter Nherera and Others v Tafadzwa Mukazi and Others

The four applicants were members of Four Brothers Mining Syndicate and registered holders of mining blocks in the Copperqueen area, Gokwe, Zimbabwe. The dispute centered on Gazemba III, Registration no 25685. The applicants alleged that the first to third respondents invaded their mining block in a violent manner, accompanied by illegal gold miners armed with machetes, and issued threats while purportedly pegging their mine. The applicants wrote a letter of complaint dated 17 August 2021 to the fourth respondent (Provincial Mining Director Midlands), but no action was taken. The applicants held a certificate of registration, inspection certificate, and proof of payments from Fidelity Printers and Refineries, demonstrating their legitimate mining operations.

• Whether the applicants established a prima facie right to the mining claim Gazemba III Registration no 25685
• Whether the applicants would suffer irreparable harm if the interim relief was not granted
• Whether the applicants had no alternative remedy available
• Whether the balance of convenience favored granting the interdict against the respondents
• Whether the matter was sufficiently urgent to warrant urgent chamber application relief

The application was granted as per the draft order with the deletion of paragraph 3 of the interim relief. The final order interdicted the first to third respondents from asserting any rights in respect of Gazemba III Registration no 25685 unless they produce legal documents or court authorization; ordered them not to interfere with applicants' mining operations through violence; and ordered them to bear costs on attorney-client scale. Interim relief interdicted the first to third respondents from invading or accessing the mining claim and ordered them not to behave violently towards applicants or their employees.

A registered holder of a mining claim who possesses valid certificates of registration, inspection certificates, and evidence of legitimate production (such as proof of payments to authorized agents) has established a prima facie right sufficient to obtain an interdict against persons who have no legal title to the claim and who are violently interfering with mining operations. Where such interference threatens irreparable prejudice to ongoing legitimate mining business, and the respondents have no lawful basis to be on the mining premises, the balance of convenience favors granting interdictory relief. Prior correspondence with the relevant mining authority constitutes sufficient attempt at alternative dispute resolution.

The court observed that the fact that applicants may not have approached the police was "of no moment" given that they had taken other steps to resolve the dispute through the mining authority. The court also noted approvingly that the applicants' counsel was "reasonable enough" to concede that paragraph 3 of the interim relief (ordering the fourth respondent to ensure compliance and enlist police services) should be expunged, suggesting that such an order against a non-opposing regulatory authority may have been inappropriate or overreaching.

This case demonstrates the Zimbabwean High Court's approach to protecting registered mining rights holders from violent invasions and illegal occupation of mining claims. It clarifies that holders of valid mining certificates with evidence of legitimate operations (including proper declarations to authorized agents like Fidelity Printers) are entitled to urgent interdict relief against persons with no legal title who attempt to forcibly occupy mining claims. The case affirms that writing to the relevant mining authority constitutes sufficient steps to seek alternative resolution, and that failure to report to police does not automatically defeat an urgent application. It also shows the court's willingness to grant interdicts to prevent violent interference with lawful mining operations where prima facie rights are established and irreparable harm is threatened.