The applicant was a valid offer letter holder and lawful occupier of Subdivision 8 of SPA farm, Mazowe, measuring 32.30 hectares. The first respondent was a mining syndicate holding Special Mining Grant No. 7072 issued under the Mines and Minerals Act [Chapter 21:05]. Three years after the applicant had granted written consent to the first respondent to conduct mining operations on her land (via a letter dated 28 February 2017), she approached the court seeking to nullify the special grant and interdict the mining operations. The applicant claimed that she had not given written consent for the first respondent to mine within 450 metres of her principal residence, as required by section 31(a)(i) of the Mines and Minerals Act. She admitted giving consent but argued it did not authorize mining within the 450-metre radius. The first respondent contended that the written consent was open-ended and encompassed all mining operations including within the 450-metre radius, and that the dispute arose after they had invested substantially in the mining operation.
The application was dismissed with costs.
Where a landowner provides written consent for mining operations in clear and unambiguous terms without express limitations, such consent satisfies the requirements of section 31(1)(a)(i) of the Mines and Minerals Act [Chapter 21:05] and will be interpreted according to the literal rule of statutory interpretation to encompass all mining operations, including those within 450 metres of the principal homestead. A Special Mining Grant issued on the basis of valid written consent from the landowner cannot be declared null and void, as it has been granted in compliance with statutory requirements. The ordinary, plain, literal meaning of words in a written consent must be adopted unless that meaning is at variance with the intention of the legislature.
The court made observations about the inherently conflictual relationship between holders of farming rights and mining rights, describing it as "a caricature and classic example of that of a cat and mouse or cat and dog. Though meant to cohabit they cannot co-exist. It is in their DNA to fight at every encounter and at the slightest opportunity." The court also noted that while the applicant as lawful occupier had real, direct and substantial interest in the matter and an existing right to protect, the granting of a declaratory order remains within the court's discretion. The court acknowledged that nothing turns on the issue of the declaratory application itself, but that in the judicious exercise of discretion, there was need to explore the impugned statutory provision to determine compliance.
This case is significant in Zimbabwean mining and property law for clarifying the interpretation of written consent requirements under section 31 of the Mines and Minerals Act [Chapter 21:05]. It establishes that where a landowner gives written consent for mining operations in clear and unambiguous terms, such consent will be interpreted according to its ordinary grammatical meaning and will be deemed to encompass all aspects of mining operations unless explicitly limited. The case illustrates the tension between farming and mining rights in Zimbabwe and the courts' approach to balancing these competing interests. It also reinforces the principle that parties cannot later resile from clear written agreements, particularly where the other party has relied upon them and made substantial investments. The judgment emphasizes the importance of precise drafting when landowners grant mining consents and the courts' reluctance to interfere with validly issued mining rights where statutory requirements have been met.