Natural Justice

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.

Hove v Harare City (HH 205/16 HC 1728/15) [2016] ZWHHC 205 (23 March 2016);

1

HH 205/16

HC 1728/15

 

TINOFARA KUDAKWASHE HOVE

versus

CITY OF HARARE

 

 

 

HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE

MUREMBA J

HARARE, 19 January 2016 and 23 March 2016

 

 

 

Opposed Application

 

 

 

E Matsanura, for the applicant

C Kwaramba, for the respondent

 

 

This was an application to interdict the respondent from disconnecting water supplies from the applicant’s property without a court order and from charging commercial rates for the use of water from the said property.

The applicant submitted that the respondent was infringing on their right to water as provided in s 77(a) of the constitution. In interpreting the right to water, the court found that the right empowers local authorities to levy rates to raise revenue for service provision and does not prohibit disconnections of water services for non-payment. Additionally, the court held that the right to water contains the protection against arbitrary and illegal disconnections. Consequently, when a bill is genuinely disputed there should be recourse to the court before disconnection as per s 69 (3) of the constitution and the holding in Mushoriwa v City of Harare HH 195/14.

The court held that the applicant had proved his right to water but failed to prove the genuineness of his claim, since he did not provide proof letters of complaint disputing the bills. This also had a negative bearing on the grant of the interdict order.

The court also found that the applicant converted domestic premises for use as commercial premises and was not entitled to be charged domestic rates. 

The court also noted that the applicant failed to give adequate information which would show that the respondent did not follow the correct procedure in zoning and rating it.

Accordingly, the application was dismissed with costs.

S v Mungate and Others (B 666-71/10) [2010] ZWHHC 126 (28 June 2010);

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.

Subscribe to Natural Justice