Quarrying Enterprises (Private) Limited v Southern Granite (Private) Limited

Both parties are registered companies engaged in granite mining. The applicant is the registered holder of claim number 26736BM and the respondent owned claim number 32675BM. A dispute arose over the boundaries of these two claims. On 4 April 2018, the Acting Provincial Mining Director wrote to the respondent expressing an intention to cancel certificate of registration number 32675BM for over-pegging, as the applicant was the prior pegger. The respondent was advised of its right to appeal within 30 days. The respondent lodged an appeal to the Minister of Mines on 25 April 2018. While the appeal was pending, the applicant filed an application before the Mining Commissioner for an injunction under section 354 of the Mines and Minerals Act. On 6 December 2018, the Minister dismissed the appeal and confirmed the cancellation of the respondent's certificate. The applicant then filed this urgent chamber application seeking to evict the respondent from the disputed claim, interdict mining operations, and declare the respondent's operations unlawful. The respondent had been mining at the location since 2014.

• Whether the matter was urgent and deserving of being heard on an urgent basis
• When the need to act arose for purposes of determining urgency
• Whether delay or abstention from action until the deadline approaches constitutes proper urgency

The matter was struck off the roll of urgent matters with costs against the applicant.

A matter cannot be deemed urgent where the need to act arose at an earlier date but the applicant deliberately or carelessly abstained from taking action until a later development occurred. Urgency must be assessed based on when the circumstances first arose that required urgent intervention, not when subsequent related events occur. Where an applicant knew or ought to have known that existing circumstances rendered another party's actions unlawful and requiring immediate intervention, but failed to act promptly, the applicant cannot later claim urgency based on confirmation or continuation of those same circumstances. Self-created urgency through delay does not entitle an applicant to jump the queue and access the court's urgent roll.

The court noted that the Provincial Mining Director's letter of 4 December 2018 contained an obvious error regarding which certificate was cancelled and that the direction to cease operations was not part of the Minister's decision. The court also observed that the relief sought before the Mining Commissioner was in substance more or less the same as the relief sought in the present urgent application. The judge used the metaphor that the matter "cannot be allowed to cross the bridge at a privileged speed, it does not deserve to jump the queue" to emphasize the principle against allowing non-urgent matters to proceed on the urgent roll.

This case reinforces the strict approach Zimbabwean courts take to urgency in chamber applications. It demonstrates that applicants cannot deliberately delay taking action when they are aware of circumstances requiring urgent relief, and then claim urgency when a later event occurs. The case emphasizes that urgency must be assessed based on when the need to act first arose, not when subsequent developments occur. It serves as a warning against strategic delay in invoking the court's urgent jurisdiction and illustrates the court's commitment to protecting the integrity of the urgent roll by preventing abuse through self-created urgency.