High Court halts gold mining operations in Mashonaland East dispute

The High Court of Zimbabwe has granted an interdict in a mining dispute between Shingirai Muchinapo and G. Dadirai (N.O.), Edwick Dzapasi, the Minister of Mines and Mining Development, and the Officer Commanding Zimbabwe Republic Police, CID Minerals, Flora and Fauna Unit, Mashonaland East.

The case centered around two blocks of mining claims in Mashonaland East Province. Muchinapo is the registered owner of the Chifumbi 2 Mine (Registration Number 1688G), while Dadirai owns the Averum 22 Mine (Registration Number 37918).

A dispute arose when Dadirai allegedly began mining in an area that Muchinapo claimed was within his registered claims. The Provincial Mining Director adjudicated upon the dispute and ruled in December 2022 that Dadirai should confine her operations to her registered block.

However, in a surprising turn of events, the Provincial Mining Director issued another determination in January 2024, effectively reversing his previous decision. He suspended Muchinapo’s mining licence and allowed Dadirai to resume mining on the disputed ground.

Muchinapo challenged this latest determination through an application for review in the High Court. He also filed an urgent chamber application seeking to suspend the January 2024 order until the review was finalised.

The Minister of Mines and Mining Development, represented by the Civil Division Attorney General’s Office, and the Officer Commanding Zimbabwe Republic Police did not participate in the legal proceedings.

Dadirai, represented by Tapiwa and Associates, opposed the application on two main grounds. Firstly, she argued that the matter was not urgent.

Secondly, she contended that Muchinapo had not exhausted domestic remedies by failing to appeal the cancellation of his license to the Minister.

Justice Manyangadze dismissed both points in limine (preliminary objections). He pointed out that Dadirai was allowed to continue mining while Muchinapo’s operations were halted. This, he argued, justified seeking urgent relief from the High Court.

On the domestic remedies argument, the judge referenced the case of Mixnote Investments (Pvt) Ltd v Evans Majola and others. In that case, the court ruled that an appeal to the Minister does not suspend the operation of the decision being appealed.

Relying on the Mixnote Investments case, Justice Manyangadze expressed his belief that Muchinapo was within his rights to seek a review of the Provincial Mining Director’s decision alongside urgent relief.

Turning to the merits of the application, Muchinapo argued that he had a clear right to the relief sought, evidenced by his registration certificate and the December 2022 decision in his favor.

He also highlighted the potential for irreparable harm if the interdict was not granted, as gold is a finite resource.

Dadirai, on the other hand, claimed that Muchinapo was actually encroaching on her mine and that she was the one who had been mining there all along.

A critical point in the case involved the role of the Provincial Mining Director and the Permanent Secretary for Mines.

Dadirai argued that the January 2024 decision, which favored her, was made by the Permanent Secretary, not the Provincial Mining Director who had previously ruled against her.

Justice Manyangadze dismissed this argument, stating that the roles of these officials are well defined.

He pointed out that the Provincial Mining Director, the Provincial Mining Commissioner, and the Permanent Secretary all exercise judicial or quasi-judicial functions when resolving mining disputes.

The judge drew heavily from the Mixnote Investments case, where it was established that the Provincial Mining Director and the Permanent Secretary are essentially the same office acting in a judicial capacity. An official cannot reverse their own decisions made in that capacity.

Justice Manyangadze concluded that Dadirai’s reliance on the Permanent Secretary’s decision was misplaced, and that the pending review application had good prospects of success.

Accordingly, the High Court granted an interim interdict, effectively suspending the January 2024 order. This means that both parties must confine their operations to their respective registered claims until the review application is finalized.