This was an appeal against the decision of a magistrate to evict the appellant from land which he had occupied for several years. The appellant was convicted of contravening s 3(2) (a) as read with s 3(3) of the Gazetted Lands (Consequential Provisions) Act, for continuing to occupy state land without lawful authority. 

The appellant contended that the trial magistrate failed to take into account that he had established a lawful right to remain on the property through the authority of the Ministry of Lands and Rural Resettlement and by being in possession of mining rights over the land.

The High Court considered whether the magistrate erred by failing to consider the appellant’s arguments. The court applied s 236 of the Criminal Law Code that provides that ignorance of law is a defence but where such ignorance was brought about by the advice of an administrative officer and the advice is acted upon, this was a proper defence. The court noted that that the Chief Lands Officer had instructed the appellant to remain in occupation of the farm and he acted on these representations.

The court also found that the appellant’s mining rights gave him a right of occupation of the land and the right to the use of any surface within the boundaries of land. 

The appellant’s eviction and sentence was therefore held to be unlawful and the court set aside the appellant’s conviction and sentence. 

The court considered an appeal against the conviction and sentence of the appellant. The appellant had been convicted and sentenced for wrongfully, and unlawfully possessing 269 grains of concentrates containing gold, valued at $1 896,23 while not being the holder of a licence or permit, and not being the employee of any permit or licence holder, in contravention of s 3 of the Gold Trade Act. 

In considering the evidence, the court noted that a detective constable jumped over the fence towards the back of the house and saw the appellant (who had a smelting pot in his hand) and another person. The constable succeeded in grabbing a plastic bag protruding from the appellant's pocket as he ran through a gate, dropping two gold stones in the process. The appellant was later arrested, giving a warned and cautioned statement, in the presence of his legal practitioner. 

The court upheld that although the statement made it very clear that the appellant knew that gold was being smelted in his workshop, his defence was that he was unaware of that fact until the police were about to come on the scene. This explanation might have raised a modicum of doubt but since it had been confirmed some months later in the presence of the appellant's legal representative, it was inherently improbable. 

The court found that on that state of the evidence, it was quite clear that the conviction was fully justified on the facts and the appeal was thus dismissed.

This was an urgent chamber application by the applicant in the High Court to interdict the first respondent from carrying out mining operations on its claim; from interfering with its lawful mining operations; and to desist from acts of uncontrolled violence they had unleashed at the site.

The issue before the court was to determine whether the Mining Commissioner should revisit the same dispute. The first respondent contended that the matter was not urgent since the dispute between the parties had been resolved in favour of the first respondent by the Mining Commissioner. However, it was found that the respondent had been ordered to stop but had allegedly resumed illegal activity.

The court held that in terms of s345(1) of the Mines and Minerals Act [Chapter 21:05] where both parties have agreed in writing, the Mining Commissioner should resolve the dispute regardless of the original jurisdiction of the High Court. It was also found that s346 confers upon the Mining Commissioner judicial power to hold a court in order to determine a dispute in the simplest, speediest and cheapest manner possible. The court held that the Mining Commissioner exercised judicial power including the rules of natural justice and that once he pronounced himself on a matter, he became functus officio and so cannot revisit the same dispute in order to review his own decision.

The court held that the applicant had exhibited proof of lawful registration of the mining claims. Consequently, the appeal succeeded.

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.