T & M Mining Syndicate v Steward Nyakotyo and Provincial Mining Director Mashonaland Central

The applicant is the registered owner of a gold reef mining block called Loveless 01 (registration number 48364) registered in May 2021 in Concession. The first respondent is a holder of an Offer of Land Holding under the Land Reform and Resettlement Programme (Model A2 Phase ii) offered to him on 30 October 2008 for Subdivision 4 of Ivador of Farm 8 of Howick in Mazoe, measuring 128.00 hectares for agricultural purposes. A dispute arose regarding the location of the mining operations. On 13 September 2021, the first respondent, accompanied by his worker Trison Chiyangwa and two men claiming to be soldiers, came to the applicant's mine claiming it was situated on his land. They were armed with golf sticks and wooden logs, threatened violence, and chased away the applicant's employees, forcing them to abandon their mining equipment and ore. The first respondent had previously complained about drilling and blasting activities disturbing his peace. The applicant had earlier approached the second respondent to resolve the dispute, but the matter remained unresolved due to financial constraints preventing a field visit. There was a background dispute dating to 2019 when the applicant initially attempted to mine without a license.

• Whether the matter was urgent and whether there was material non-disclosure of facts by the applicant
• Whether the relief sought was competent, particularly whether the court could grant relief allowing mining activities allegedly conducted ultra vires section 31 of the Mines and Minerals Act
• Whether the applicant established the requirements for a temporary interdict: (i) a prima facie right, (ii) injury actually committed, and (iii) absence of any other remedy
• Whether the first respondent's actions in forcibly removing the applicant from the mining location constituted unlawful self-help

The court granted the urgent relief for a temporary interdict. A provisional order was issued interdicting the first respondent or anyone acting through him from interfering with the applicant's mining operations on Loveless 01 in Concession or acting in any manner likely to interfere with such operations. The matter was set down for the return date to show cause why the first respondent should not be ordered to vacate the applicant's mining Block Loveness 01 in Concession and pay costs of suit. Service was to be effected by the Sheriff or his lawful deputy.

A holder of a prima facie valid mining license is entitled to interim protection by way of interdict against forcible interference with mining operations, even where there are disputes about compliance with statutory requirements such as section 31 of the Mines and Minerals Act. Urgency in mining disputes arises when the need to act stems from specific incidents such as forcible removal from mining locations, rather than from longstanding background disputes. Self-help by land owners in removing miners operating under valid licenses is unlawful and justifies interim interdictory relief. Questions regarding the alleged illegality or ultra vires nature of mining permits are matters to be determined on the return date and do not prevent the granting of interim relief where a prima facie valid license exists. A mining license holder seeking a temporary interdict must establish: (i) a prima facie right (even if open to some doubt), (ii) injury actually committed, and (iii) absence of any other adequate remedy.

The court noted that the Mines and Minerals Act provides for working schemes under section 108 to enable both miners and land owners to make use of their respective rights, with either party being able to approach the Provincial Mining Director. The court observed that miners have underground rights to extract minerals but no permanent surface rights, and can only use the surface to the extent necessary to access minerals underground. The court commented that once gold ore is extracted it cannot be replaced, highlighting the particular vulnerability of mining operations to interference. The court also observed that the Provincial Mining Director (second respondent) had been ineffective in resolving the dispute due to financial constraints preventing a field visit, implicitly suggesting that administrative resolution mechanisms were inadequate in this instance.

This case is significant in Zimbabwean mining and land law as it addresses the complex intersection between mining rights and land rights acquired through the Land Reform Programme. It establishes that holders of valid mining licenses are entitled to interim protection against unlawful self-help by land owners, even where there are disputes about the location and legality of mining operations. The case reinforces the principle that disputes over mining rights must be resolved through proper legal channels rather than forcible eviction. It also clarifies the application of urgency principles in the context of mining disputes and demonstrates the courts' willingness to protect mining operations where a prima facie valid license exists, pending final determination of underlying disputes. The judgment balances the competing interests of miners holding mineral rights and farmers holding surface rights under the land reform program.