CAFCA LIMITED
versus
RESERVE BANK OF ZIMBABWE
HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE
MTSHIYA J
HARARE, 26 May 2010, 8 June 2010 and 15 September 2010
AdvMorris, for the plaintiff
T. Chitapi, for the defendant
MTSHIYA J: On 29 July 2008 the plaintiff issued summons against the defendant for the following relief:-
ITAI MUNGATE
and
LOVERMORE MLAMBO
and
CHARLES ROVANI
and
EDMORE TARUVINGA
and
FELIX MARISA
and
EDMORE DAVID
versus
THE STATE
HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE
BHUNU J
HARARE, 29 June 2010
Mr Jena, for the appellant
Mr Chesa, for the State
Bail Appeal
This was a bail appeal against the decision of the magistrate that denied the appellants bail on grounds that they were likely to abscond trial.
The appellants were charged with unlawful prospecting for minerals, oil and natural gas without a valid license contrary to s 368 (1)(a) as read with s 4 of the Mines and Minerals Act 1 of 2006.
The court noted that the magistrate condemned the applicants to imprisonment where the state was not opposing bail, without evidence that the appellants were likely to abscond trial and without any defence from the appellants on the bail issue.
The court found that the state could not oppose the appeal since they had already conceded that the appellants were good candidates for bail.
It was held that the magistrate misdirected himself. Accordingly, bail was granted subject to conditions. The appellants were required to deposit US$20 with the clerk of Court Bindura Magistrate Court, to continue residing at their places of residence until finalization of the matter and to report to respective police stations as directed by the court.
Judgment No. SC 54/13
Civil Appeal No. SC 358/12
REPORTABLE (40)
MIDKWE MINERALS (PRIVATE) LIMITED
The first and second respondents, were parties to a contract in respect of a gold plant for three years with the option to renew. At the end of this period, the second respondent did not renew the contract but recommended the applicant to take over its operations. However, the second respondent continued to mine at the plant and refused to hand the plant over to the first respondent thereby prompting it to seek an interdict to stop the continued mining by the second respondent and applicant. This was granted by the High Court.
The appellant immediately, filed an urgent application to the High Court seeking a provisional order to stop the first and second respondents from disturbing its operations at the gold plant. The two matters went before the High Court for confirmation of the provisional orders. The first order, to stop the first respondent and associates mining, was confirmed. However, the second order, to stop the respondents’ disturbance in the mine, was discharged. This appeal was against the judgment.
The court found that the first order included all business associates of the second respondent and the applicant was a business associate of the second respondent, as evidenced by the joint venture agreement concluded between the two.
In conclusion, the court held that the appellant was mining in contravention of the contract when it approached the court for the second provisional order and as a result, the provisional order granted in that case was discharged. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Judgment No. SC 3/11
Civil Appeal No. 350/06
REPORTABLE ZLR(13)
This Supreme Court case revolved around a compromise agreement between the fourth respondent and the appellant. The fourth respondent, a registered mining company, was going bankrupt and its management was entrusted to the liquidator. The liquidator then granted the appellant the right to treat stockpiles of ore at the mine to raise money to pay the creditors. The appellant then attempted to have all mining activities registered under its name. In doing so, the appellant misrepresented the facts to the third respondents without involving the fourth respondent stating that it paid the creditors their dues and as such, it was entitled to have mining activities registered under its name. However, the fourth respondent succeeded in establishing that the appellant was lying. This led the third respondent to cancel the appellant’s falsely obtained mineral rights. The High Court agreed with the respondents that the appellant's mineral rights over the plot in dispute were justifiably cancelled. The appellant felt aggrieved by the court’s judgement and appealed to the Supreme Court.
The issue for determination was whether the appellant was allowed to register mining rights under its name and whether the third respondent erred in cancelling its rights.
The Supreme Court held that agreements cannot be valid if consent was obtained through misrepresentation. Consequently, it found that the appellant was unjustified and supported the third respondent’s decision to cancel the falsely obtained rights.
