Temporary Injunction

Turfwall Mining (Pvt) Ltd. v Dube & Others (HB 102/17 HC 291/17 X REF HC 269/17) [2017] ZWBHC 102 (27 April 2017);

1

HB 102/17

HC 291/17

X REF HC 269/17

 

TURFWALL MINING (PVT) LTD

t/a BEENSET INVESTMENTS

 

versus

 

SIPHIWE DUBE

 

And

 

PROVINCIAL MINING DIRECTOR

MATABELELAND SOUTH (NO)

 

And

 

THE ZIMBABWE REPUBLIC POLICE OFFICER

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. 

Subscribe to Temporary Injunction