Side Electrical (Private) Limited v Minister of Mines & Mining Development N.O.

Side Electrical (Private) Limited was the registered owner of gold mining claims known as Botha 1-4 (registration numbers 46035-46038), registered on 22 July 2016. The claims had been converted from nickel to gold claims by May 2016. During 21-24 May 2019, respondent's officials conducted a survey to identify beacons and boundaries in relation to key infrastructure. Following this survey and an operation on 21 December 2018 to remove illegal miners from the area, the Provincial Mining Director notified applicant on 28 June 2019 of the intention to cancel the certificates of registration. The survey allegedly found that the claims encompassed Dawnridge Primary School, railway infrastructure, and other private premises within surveyed limits of Bindura town, violating section 31(c) of the Mines and Minerals Act. Applicant appealed to the Minister on 26 July 2019, disputing these findings and arguing that Bindura Town Council had consented to the pegging. On 7 June 2021, the Minister upheld the Provincial Mining Director's decision to cancel the certificates. Applicant then sought judicial review.

• Whether the respondent failed to provide adequate reasons for the decision to cancel the certificates as required by section 3 of the Administrative Justice Act and section 68 of the Constitution
• Whether the applicant's right to be heard was violated by not being given an opportunity to make representations on the survey diagram
• Whether the respondent's decision to cancel the certificates was vitiated by gross irregularity in that there was no reasonable foundation for the decision
• Whether the respondent's decision was irrational and grossly unreasonable

The application for review was dismissed with costs.

An administrative authority satisfies its obligation to provide reasons for a decision affecting rights under section 3 of the Administrative Justice Act and section 68 of the Constitution where it states the legal basis for its decision and the factual findings that support the application of that legal provision, even if detailed written reasons are not provided. Where a party participates in a survey or investigative process that informs an administrative decision, and is subsequently notified of the decision with reference to the survey findings, procedural fairness is satisfied even if the party does not receive the actual survey diagram before the decision is made. A reviewing court will not interfere with an administrative decision on grounds of irrationality or unreasonableness unless no reasonable decision-maker, properly applying their mind to the facts, could have reached that conclusion; the court's role is not to substitute its own view for that of the administrative authority.

The court noted that while the survey diagram was referenced in the Provincial Mining Director's letter as being attached, it was in fact not attached. However, the court observed that applicant ought to have requested the diagram rather than simply accepting its absence. The court also made observations about the context of the decision, noting that illegal mining activities and previous breaches had led to the suspension of applicant's operations and formed the foundation for the survey process. The court commented on the expense and damage to infrastructure caused by illegal mining activities, though this was not essential to the decision.

This case illustrates the application of administrative law principles in Zimbabwe, particularly the duties imposed on administrative authorities under section 3 of the Administrative Justice Act and section 68 of the Constitution regarding the provision of reasons for decisions. It confirms that reasons need not be exhaustive but must be adequate to allow an affected party to understand the basis for the decision. The case also demonstrates the limited scope of judicial review of administrative decisions, reaffirming that courts will not interfere merely because they disagree with a decision, but only where it is shown to be irrational or grossly unreasonable. In the mining context, it confirms the state's powers to cancel mining certificates where statutory requirements under the Mines and Minerals Act are not met, particularly section 31(c) prohibiting mining within surveyed limits of towns without proper authorization.