Functus Officio

KAS Foods (Pvt) Ltd. v Moyo & Another (HB 135-16 HC 1281-16) [2016] ZWBHC 135 (02 June 2016);

1

 

HB 135-16

HC 1281-16

KAS FOODS (PVT) LTD

versus

GLADYS MOYO

and

ACTING PROVINCIAL MINING DIRECTOR – MIDLANDS

 

HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE

MATHONSI J

BULAWAYO 26 MAY 2016 AND 2 JUNE 2016

 

 

Urgent Chamber Application

 

V. Masvaya for the applicant

J. Magodora for the 1st respondent

Ms R. Hove for the 2nd respondent

 

 

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.

Subscribe to Functus Officio