Pinkstone Mining (PVT) Limited & 2 Others v Lafarge Cement Zimbabwe Limited & Another (HH118-18, HC 1751/18)  ZWHHC 118 (07 March 2018);
PINKSTONE MINING (PVT) LTD
AFRICAN MILLS & MINERALS (PVT) LTD
LAFARGE CEMENT ZIMBABWE LIMITED
MINISTER OF MINES AND MINES DEVELOPMENT
HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE
HARARE, 2 & 7 March 2018
Urgent Chamber Application
E. T. Muhlekiwa for the applicants
B. K. Mataruka, with him G. Ndlovu for the first respondent
M. Chimombe for the second respondent
The court considered an urgent application for an order interdicting the first respondent from carrying on mining operations on the applicants’ mineral claims. At some point, the applicants and the first respondent had business dealings involving minerals from those claims. The respondent then went on to register mining claims over a piece of land which included the first applicant’s mining claims. The respondent argued that the matter was not urgent, and that the relief sought was not competent as it was final in effect.
The court considered whether the applicants had established a right to the relief sought. The court observed that the relief sought was an interim interdict, the requirements for which were: a clear right; irreparable harm; balance of convenience in favour of granting the relief, and no other satisfactory remedy. The court found that the respondent intended to mine on the applicants claim, and although the mining hadn’t commenced, the applicants could not wait until it acted and had established the prejudice likely to be suffered.
In determining the balance of convenience, the court weighed the prejudice to the applicant if the interdict was not granted against the harm to the respondent if the relief was granted. In this instance, as the mining activities were not being carried on yet, there was no prejudice to the respondent. Accordingly, the court found that the requirements for the interdict were met and the application succeeded.