On 20 February 2012, the applicant registered and occupied a mining claim known as Clifton 15 on Clifton Farm, Mberengwa. The mine was inspected and held a valid inspection certificate up to 20 February 2020. The applicant had been conducting mining operations and selling gold to Fidelity Printers and Refineries. In 2012, the 2nd respondent lodged a complaint with the 1st respondent alleging that the applicant's boundary encroached on the 2nd respondent's mining claims. Various administrative and judicial proceedings followed, including an initial cancellation directive in 2014, a successful appeal to the Minister, and subsequent review proceedings. On 17 January 2018, the 1st respondent issued a directive stopping mining operations at Clifton 15 Mine, citing imminent violence between disputing parties and criminal cases including attempted murder, robbery, theft of gold ore and assault. The applicant was not consulted before this directive was issued. The applicant challenged this directive as unlawful, arguing there was no valid court order stopping operations, he was not heard before the decision was made, and the directive was issued without following due process under the Mines and Minerals Act.
1. The order issued by 1st respondent on 17 January 2018 was declared unlawful and invalid. 2. The applicant was allowed to resume mining operations at Clifton 15 Mine. 3. The 2nd respondent was ordered to pay the costs of suit.
An administrative authority issuing a directive that affects the rights of parties must follow due process and afford those parties an opportunity to be heard before making the decision. A directive issued by a Provincial Mining Director stopping mining operations without consulting the affected parties and without following proper procedure under the Mines and Minerals Act is unlawful and invalid. A registered mining claim holder qualifies as an 'interested person' under section 14 of the High Court Act and is entitled to seek declaratory relief to challenge unlawful administrative action affecting their mining rights. Mining rights that have been validly registered and not revoked by a competent court constitute existing rights that can be protected by declaratory order.
The court made strong observations about the problematic practice of the Ministry of Mines routinely issuing directives or injunctions ordering stoppage of mining operations without following due process or consulting affected parties, stating 'Such conduct cannot be allowed to continue.' The court also criticized the Ministry's practice of remaining silent and not filing papers when disputes arising from their own directives are brought to court, commenting 'This cannot be proper in that what would have brought the parties to court are these "directives" and "injunctions" issued by the Ministry of Mines.' The court noted that when deciding whether to exercise discretion to grant a declaratur, each case must be decided on its own merits and circumstances.
This case is significant for establishing important principles regarding administrative action in the mining sector in Zimbabwe. It reinforces the requirement that administrative authorities must follow due process and afford affected parties a hearing before making decisions that prejudice their rights. The judgment is particularly important for criticizing the widespread practice of Provincial Mining Directors issuing directives stopping mining operations without consultation or proper procedure. It clarifies the proper use of section 14 of the High Court Act for declaratory relief in mining disputes and reinforces that registered mining rights cannot be arbitrarily suspended without following proper legal procedures. The case emphasizes the principle of audi alteram partem (the right to be heard) in administrative decision-making affecting property rights.