Zeplin Resources (Pvt) Ltd v Officer Commanding, ZRP Midlands and Others

Applicant held a Special Grant Licence for mining claim SC 6856 Mvuma which was renewed on 26 April 2022. George Matsikidze allegedly conducted illegal mining activities on the applicant's mining claim. On 28 January 2022 (before the renewal of applicant's licence), the Provincial Mining Director (3rd respondent) wrote to the Officer-In-Charge ZRP Mvuma (2nd respondent) directing that Matsikidze, who had no current mining titles, be removed from the disputed mining area. When applicant's legal practitioners approached 1st and 2nd respondents requesting enforcement of the 28 January 2022 directive, the police objected to their involvement in the absence of a court order. Applicant then brought an urgent chamber application seeking to compel the police (1st and 2nd respondents) to enforce the Provincial Mining Director's directive and protect applicant's mining operations.

• Whether the applicant had a right to enforce the Provincial Mining Director's letter dated 28 January 2022 which was written before the applicant's Special Grant Licence was renewed
• Whether the police could be compelled to implement the Provincial Mining Director's directive without a court order
• Whether the applicant's proper remedy was mandamen van spolie rather than enforcement of the administrative directive
• Whether section 358 of the Mines and Minerals Act obligated the police to enforce the Mining Director's directive in the circumstances

The application was dismissed with costs.

A party cannot enforce an administrative directive that was issued before that party acquired the relevant legal rights that would entitle them to benefit from such directive. Where a mining rights holder alleges spoliation of their mining claim, the proper remedy is an application for mandamen van spolie, not an attempt to enforce administrative directives issued by the Provincial Mining Director. The police cannot be compelled to enforce vague administrative directives without a court order, particularly where such directives were not issued for the benefit of the party seeking enforcement. A party cannot step into the shoes of an administrative authority for purposes of enforcing that authority's directives.

The court observed that the Provincial Mining Director's letter dated 28 January 2022 was vague in that it did not specify by reference to a particular mining claim or geographical location the mine from which Matsikidze was to be ejected, making it difficult for the police to execute the directions even if they were inclined to cooperate. The court also noted that the applicant's request in paragraph 2 of the interim relief for the 3rd respondent to show the boundaries of the mining claim to the police was itself an indication that the letter was not capable of implementation and suggested a potential boundary dispute existed.

This case clarifies important principles in Zimbabwean mining law regarding: (1) the proper remedies available to mining rights holders who allege spoliation of their mining claims; (2) the limitations on enforcing administrative directives that were not issued for the benefit of the party seeking to enforce them; (3) the role of police in enforcing mining regulations and the requirement for court orders in certain circumstances; and (4) the principle that rights cannot arise from administrative actions taken before the relevant mining licence or right was granted. The case emphasizes the importance of choosing the correct legal remedy and establishes that a party cannot step into the shoes of an administrative authority to enforce that authority's directives.