Attribution of Costs

K&G Mining Syndicate v Mugangavari & Others ( HB 131/17 HC 2031/15) [2017] ZWBHC 131 (01 June 2017);

1

HB 131/17

HC 2031/15

 

 

K & G MINING SYNDICATE

 

Versus

 

RONALD MUGANGAVARI

 

And

 

PROVINCIAL MINING DIRECTOR – MIDLANDS

And

 

MINISTRY OF MINES & MINING DEVELOPMENT N.O.

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE

TAKUVA J

BULAWAYO 1 FEBRUARY & 1 JUNE 2017

 

Opposed Matter

 

This High Court case concerned an application for review in which the applicant sought an order that the third respondentÕs decision cancelling the applicants mining registration be set aside. 

The dispute arose between the applicant and the second respondent allegedly due to a double allocation of the same mining area to the applicant and the first respondent. The third respondent convinced that there was a double allocation cancelled the applicants mining rights to the extent that their boundaries were overlapping. His reasoning was that the first respondent was the first to be allocated the disputed area. The applicant was dissatisfied with the decision and hence applied for a review to the High Court.

The issue for determination by the Court was thus whether the third respondentÕs decision was justified. The Court held that since the matter was first decided in the Mining CommissionerÕs Court, the appeal was supposed to be directed to the High Court per s361 of the Mines and Minerals Act of 1961 and not to the Minister. The High Court thus held that the entire proceeding, and the decision that followed it, was a nullity.

As such, the determination by the third respondent cancelling the applicantÕs Mining registration certificate held by the applicant was set aside with cost.

Mapanga v Mupepe & Another (HH 157-17 , HC 12451/12) [2017] ZWHHC 157 (08 March 2017);

1

HH 157-17

HC 12451/12

 

NOREST MAPANGA

versus

WILLIAM MUPEPE

and

HOMESTAKE MINING & TECHNICAL

SERVICES (PVT) LTD

 

 

 

HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE

MUREMBA J

HARARE, 16-17 May 2016, 17 January 2017 & 8 March 2017

 

 

 

Civil Trial

 

 

E Samundombe, for the plaintiff

S Mahuni, for the defendant

 

 

The plaintiff issued summons, claiming damages for malicious arrest, detention and prosecution emanating from the course of employment with the respondent. The plaintiff was employed by the respondent as a security manager at the mine where the respondent lost slime gold due to theft.

The main issue before the court was whether the respondent maliciously caused the arrest of the plaintiff and whether the plaintiff suffered damages.

The court pointed out that an arrest is malicious in cases where the defendant makes improper use of the legal process to deprive the plaintiff of his liberty. The court held that a plaintiff suing for damages for malicious arrest must prove that the prosecution was instigated by the defendant and it was concluded in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff must further prove that there was no reasonable cause for the prosecution and the defendant acted maliciously. The court pointed out that a malicious prosecution concerns a misuse or abuse of power.

In dismissing the matter, the court noted that the defendant had lost gold slime from theft, hence there was nothing wrong with his conduct. Furthermore, access to the dumpsite with gold slime was through the locked gate to which the plaintiffs were in charge. The court held that the plaintiff had failed to prove that his arrest, detention and prosecution were malicious.

The claim was dismissed with costs.

Mabwe Minerals (Pvt) Ltd. & Others v Valentine & Another (HH 793/16 HC 1514/16) [2016] ZWHHC 793 (08 December 2016);

1

HH 793/16

HC 1514/16

 

MABWE MINERALS (PRIVATE) LIMITED

and

TAPIWA GURUPIRA

and

TAG MINERALS ZIMBABWE (PVT) LTD

and

JOHN RICHARD NEEDHAM GROVES

versus

PETER VALENTINE

and

BASE MINERAL ZIMBABWE (PRIVATE) LIMITED

 

 

 

HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE

MANGOTA J

HARARE, 10 October AND 8 December 2016

 

 

 

Opposed Matter

 

 

 

R. F Mushoriwa, for the applicants

This was an application for a decree of perpetual silence against the respondents for engaging in lawsuits aimed at harassing the applicants. The dispute between the parties emanated from certain claims in a mine, which resulted in over 30 court applications between the parties.

The court first dealt with the nature of the relief sought by the applicants. The court after citing authorities pointed out that the relief is recognised in the jurisdiction of the court. The court pointed out that in cases where repeated and persistent litigation between parties, in the the same cause of action, the court can make a general order prohibiting the institution of such litigation without the leave of the court. It was noted that such a remedy is extraordinary as it makes a person deaf before the court. The court also pointed out that the remedy is only granted where a party demonstrates to the court that the defendant or respondent is a serial litigator, with a tendency to abuse the court, the court process and the other party.

In dismissing the application, the court dealt with the history of the litigants and concluded that the respondents had a defined cause and were not serial litigators. 

The court dismissed the application with costs on a higher scale.

Nkomo v Moyo & Others (HH 798-16 HC 9130/16) [2016] ZWHHC 798 (14 September 2016);

1

HH 798-16

HC 9130/16

 

TRYNOS NKOMO

versus

SIFA NJANI MOYO

and

THE OFFICER IN CHARGE WEST NICHOLSON

POLICE STATION NO.

and

OFFICER COMMANDING  BORDER CONTROL

AND MINERALS UNIT N.O

 

 

HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE

MWAYERA J

HARARE, 13 & 14   September 2016

 

 

 

Urgent chamber application

 

 

 

Ms R Zvimba, for the applicant

B Diza, for the first respondent

This was an urgent application by the applicant, seeking an order to stop the respondents from mining gold ore from an area which the applicant had a prospecting licence.

The court set out the requirements of an interdict and held that the applicant was required to prove the existence of a prima facie right. Secondly, that there was an injury actually committed or reasonably apprehended. Thirdly, that there was  an absence of a similar or adequate remedy. Lastly, that the balance of convenience favoured the grant of the relief.

The court pointed out that the applicant had other remedies available. Such remedies included using the Ministry of Mines to demarcate the area between the parties. Secondly, ore claimed by the applicants was held as an exhibit in a criminal case, thereby removing urgency in the application and any irreparable harm that could be occasioned by waiting.

Accordingly, the court declined to deal with the matter on urgent basis, dismissed the application and ordered the applicants to pay the respondents’ costs on an ordinary scale.

Mugomba v Rimbo & Others (HH380-16 HC 8811/13) [2016] ZWHHC 380 (29 June 2016);

1

HH380-16

HC 8811/13

 

FRANCIS MUGOMBA

versus

MAYOR RIMBO

and

RIMBO MINERALS (PVT) LTD

and

MINING COMMISSIONER

 

 

 

HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE

MATANDA-MOYO J

HARARE, 30 September 2015 & 29 June 2016

 

 

 

Trial

 

 

 

F Chauke, for the plaintiff

F Musihairambwe, for the 1st & 2nd defendants

 

 

This was an application by the plaintiff seeking an order declaring the first and second defendants’ construction of a milling plant and prospecting activities as unlawful, for interfering with the plaintiff’s agricultural activities. 

The first defendant opposed the reliefs sought, on grounds that he was the lawful owner of the mining blocks.

The court first assessed the evidence and concluded that the defendants were not in compliance of the procedures set out under the Mines and Minerals Act, for registering the claims and the subsequent conversion into blocks. The court further held that the defendants failed to show any plan lodged with the Commissioner of Mines, as required under the Mines and Minerals Act. 

Lastly, the court determined whether the land in dispute was cleared on or before the registration of the blocks and whether such land is the only portion, suitable of for farming. After outlining the rights of various parties, the court concluded that the plaintiff had no right to clear the land pegged for mining. However, the court could not make a holding on whether the prospecting operations were interfering with the plaintiff’s agricultural activities. This is because the plaintiff failed to
clarify whether the cleared field was located 450 metres from the principal homestead. The court therefore referred this issue to the Mining Commissioner for investigation and report, according to s 345 of the Mines and Minerals Act.

The court ordered the defendants to stop mining operations without complying with the law and to pay costs.

Subscribe to Attribution of Costs