The applicant (SD Mining Syndicate) entered into a tribute agreement with Geodynamics (Pvt) Ltd on 1 May 2020, granting it mining rights over Trafalgar Mine "A" for three years. On 24 November 2021, the applicant obtained a provisional order interdicting the 1st respondent from interfering with its mining operations at Trafalgar Mine. The 1st respondent noted an appeal against this decision on 26 November 2021 (SC 460/21). The applicant then sought leave to execute the judgment pending appeal, alleging that the 1st respondent continued to interfere with its mining operations by blocking access through erecting fences and removing gold ore from the mine. The 1st respondent claimed prospecting rights over Plot 93, Trafalgar Farm, but produced prospecting documentation that lacked proper stamps from the Provincial Mining Director and contained suspicious irregularities (same dates on different documents, undated prospecting licence).
Application for leave to execute pending appeal granted. The order granted in HC 6560/21 shall be operational pending determination of the 1st respondent's appeal in SC 460/21. The 1st respondent to bear costs of suit on an ordinary scale.
An appellant's absolute right to appeal can be curtailed where the appeal is not brought with bona fide intention to test the correctness of the lower court's decision, but is motivated by a desire to buy time or harass the successful party. In exercising discretion to grant leave to execute pending appeal, the court must determine what is just and equitable considering: (1) potentiality of irreparable harm to the appellant if leave is granted; (2) potentiality of irreparable harm to the respondent if leave is refused; (3) prospects of success on appeal and whether the appeal is frivolous or vexatious; and (4) the balance of hardship or convenience. Mining rights boundary disputes cannot be entertained when one party fails to produce valid, properly stamped mining documentation. Applications for leave to execute pending appeal do not require a return day as the wording of orders is within the court's discretion and the appeal hearing itself provides finality.
The court observed that the 1st respondent's conduct in filing a separate application (HC 7393/21) seeking a physical visit to the disputed site without citing the applicant as a respondent, despite the applicant having substantial interest, raised questions about whether the 1st respondent had a genuine desire to bring the dispute to finality. The court characterized this conduct as potentially constituting abuse of court process. The court also noted that it would make no sense to have a return day for applications of this nature, as parties would have no business to conduct on the return day before the appeal hearing, and attempting to confirm or discharge a provisional order before the appeal would render the appeal purely academic.
This case establishes important principles regarding leave to execute pending appeal in Zimbabwean mining disputes. It affirms that where an appellant's documentation is irregular and the appeal appears to be motivated by harassment or delay rather than bona fide intention to test the correctness of a decision, courts will exercise their discretion to grant leave to execute. The judgment also clarifies that applications for leave to execute pending appeal do not require a return day, as the appeal hearing itself serves as the sunset clause. The case emphasizes the importance of producing proper, stamped mining documentation and demonstrates that boundary disputes cannot be entertained when one party lacks valid mining rights documentation.