The court considered an urgent application, which was heard in chambers, to prevent the applicants’ eviction from their mining claims. 

The mining claims, which were abandoned, were owned by the second respondent. Pursuant to the abandonment, the mining claims were opened up to prospecting third parties. 

The applicants claimed that they applied to the relevant authority and were granted a lease of the disputed mining claims. Consequently, they argued that they should not be evicted.

The court, therefore, had to determine whether the eviction of the applicants was lawful.

The court found that the applicants failed to provide evidence showing that they had obtained a lease. It also found that the second respondent, which purportedly abandoned the mining claims in dispute, had been placed under a reconstruction order in terms of the Reconstruction of State-Indebted Insolvent Companies Act [CAP 24:27], which had the effect of voiding every disposition of the property, without the approval of the administrator. In this instance, the administrator did not approve the abandonment. As such, it was null and void, and was not open for prospecting.

The court found that the applicants’ manager and principal officer in person, not the applicants themselves, featured in the provided documents and that the eviction was against that person. The applicants themselves never acquired a right over the mining claims.
Finally, the court found the applicants were sluggard and failed to approach the court in good time.

Accordingly, the application was dismissed.

In this High Court case, the applicant sought interim and final orders to the effect that the first respondent be stopped from carrying out mining activities on the disputed area. 

The applicant was a registered holder of Legion Mine in Gwanda (“mine”).  The respondents then entered into a three years’ tribute agreement with the first respondent. Terms of the agreement required the first respondent to pay royalties to the applicant.  However, after the three years expired, the first respondent refused to sign the new contract and to pay royalties to the applicant.

The issue for determination was whether the final order and an interim injunction could be issued against the first respondent, as sought by the applicant.

The respondent argued (1) that the damages suffered were reparable, and thus, a stop order could not be issued; (2) the affidavit was defective for failing (a) to indicate that the matter was urgent and (b) to make a distinction between payers that needed a final order and interim order. In response, the court held that (1) an interdict could be issued if the damages suffered are difficult to assess; (2) failure to title an affidavit as urgent does not make it defective if that could be read from the content of the affidavit; and (3)  the applicant's affidavit was clear that she wanted an interim injunction stopping the first respondent from carrying out mining operations and the final orders for a complete cessation of mining activities. 

Accordingly, the Court ordered the applicants prayers as sought. 

The court considered an appeal against the High Court’s decision not to interdict arbitration proceedings. 

The facts leading to the appeal were that a joint venture was entered into by the appellant and two mining companies. A dispute subsequently arose which the appellant claimed rendered the contract void ab initio. The first respondent sought a declaration that the contract was valid and soon after, referred the dispute to arbitration. However, the parties failed to agree on an arbitrator and one was appointed by an arbitral institution. Although the appellant boycotted a pre-arbitration meeting, the arbitrator proceeded, identified preliminary issues, and ordered the parties to file submissions. This prompted the appellant to file an urgent application to prevent the arbitration proceedings. The High Court’s refusal grant the interdict is what the appellant appealed against.

Before considering the appeal, the court observed that it was strange that the there was no nexus between the relief sought in the court below and that sought on appeal. The court went on to point out that the appellant refused to correct an error in its citation of the respondent in the proceedings but instead sought to hold out the matter as undefended. This was an abuse of court process. On this basis alone the proceedings could not be sustained.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. The court held that the wrong citation was compounded by the appellant’s refusal to rectify the error and made an order for exemplary costs. 

The applicant in this High Court case was seeking interim orders that (1) the first and second respondent be ordered to restore the supply of water from Blanket Dam in Gwanda to the applicant’s mine; (2) the first and the second respondent be interdicted from interfering with the applicant’s possession of his water supply infrastructure without obtaining a court order to that effect. 

The facts were that the first and second respondent disconnected the water supply that fed the applicants mine and the neighbouring community. The applicants argued that the respondents infringed its right to water under s77 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe. The respondents, on the other side, argued that the matter was not urgent, and they were entitled to disconnect the water supply as the applicant failed to pay the water bills, thereby ending the contract between them.

Thus, the main issue for determination was whether the applicant had satisfied the requirement for an interim order to be issued; 

On the first issue, the Court held that the applicant had satisfied the requirements for an interim order which are, (i) prima facie right; (ii) reasonable apprehension of irreparable injury; (iii) no alternative relief available; (iv) and the balance of convenience favouring the granting of the interdict. 

As a result, the interim order was allowed pending the main trial and the hearing of the interdict.