Satond Investments (Private) Limited v Munashe Shava

The applicant obtained a prospecting licence on 2 June 2014 and was issued with a certificate of registration as a registered holder of a block of reef claims called Ascot 168 situated on Knockmalloch Farm on 4 January 2016. On 4 December 2014, the Minister of Lands and Rural Resettlement offered subdivision 19 Knockmalloch to the respondent. The land offered to the respondent included 1.8 hectares inside Ascot 168 mine where the applicant's mining block is situated. On 2 October 2016, the respondent instructed his employees to plough on the 1.8 hectares portion of land inside the Ascot 168 mine. The applicant claimed that the presence of the respondent's workers disturbed its mining operations and sought a permanent interdict to prevent the respondent from carrying out farming activities on the disputed land.

• Whether the applicant had a clear right to interdict the respondent from farming activities on the mining location
• Whether the land was open for prospecting at the time the prospecting licence was issued
• Whether the applicant was required to comply with Parts V and VII of the Mines and Minerals Act
• Whether the respondent's farming rights were superior to the applicant's mining rights
• Whether the applicant had established all requirements for a final interdict including clear right, actual or reasonably apprehended injury, and absence of alternative remedy

1. The respondent, his employees, invitees, friends and/or relatives are permanently interdicted from carrying out any farming activities at Ascot 168 Mine situated on subdivision 19 Knockmalloch Farm, Norton. 2. The respondent shall pay costs of the application on an ordinary scale.

Under section 179 of the Mines and Minerals Act, mining rights are superior to farming rights on a registered mining location. A landowner or occupier retains the right to cultivate the surface of a mining location only insofar as such cultivation does not interfere with the proper working of the location for mining purposes. Where farming activities interfere with lawful mining operations, such conduct is unlawful and may be interdicted. Land is open for prospecting under section 26 of the Act unless it falls within the definition of "land under cultivation" in section 30, and the burden is on the party claiming the land was under cultivation to prove this. A prospecting licence obtained before land is offered for agricultural purposes establishes priority in favor of mining rights, as prospecting, searching and pegging are preliminary steps toward registration of mining claims.

The court observed that section 32 of the Mines and Minerals Act does not apply to disputes between a landowner and a holder of a certificate of registration (a miner), but rather to disputes between a landowner and a prospector before the prospecting, pegging and issuance of the certificate of registration. The court noted that under section 345(1) of the Act, the High Court has original jurisdiction in every civil matter, complaint or dispute arising under the Act, unless the parties agree in writing to the mining commissioner's jurisdiction. The court also commented that costs on a legal practitioner and client scale were not justified in the circumstances and awarded costs on an ordinary scale instead.

This case establishes important principles regarding the relationship between mining rights and agricultural rights on the same piece of land in Zimbabwe. It clarifies that mining rights take precedence over farming rights under section 179 of the Mines and Minerals Act, and that a landowner can only exercise farming rights to the extent that such exercise does not interfere with mining operations. The case also provides guidance on when land is considered "open for prospecting" and clarifies that a prospecting licence obtained before land is allocated for agricultural purposes gives superior rights to the miner, even if the certificate of registration is issued after the offer letter for agricultural use.