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.

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. 

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.

This was a criminal trial in which the accused was charged with two counts for contravening the Mines and Minerals Act and the Money Laundering and Proceeds of Crime Act.

The court determined whether the accused misrepresented that he had the mandate to sell a special grant which prejudiced the buyers. In finding the accused guilty of fraud, the court pointed out that the accused mispresented that he had the authority to deal with a coal mining concession held under a  special grant. Through the misrepresentation, the accused personally benefitted from the proceeds. The court further pointed out that the moment the accused benefitted from the criminal activity, the property became proceeds of crime. The accused further received occupation of the immovable property which he was not entitled.

On the criminal charge against the accused for ceding a mining right to a third person without the consent of the president, the court held that the section does not create a criminal offence. It merely sets out the characteristics of the special right and how it can be assigned.

The accused was found guilty on both counts and sentenced to 10 years imprisonment, with 2 years suspended for 5 years. Further 4 years were suspended on condition that the accused paid restitution to the complainant. Effectively, the accused was sentenced to 4 years imprisonment.