Supreme Court Throws Lifeline to Mining Rights App...

Supreme Court Throws Lifeline to Mining Rights Appeal

Nyashadzashe Ndoro- Chief Reporter

The Supreme Court of Zimbabwe has granted an application for condonation and extension of time to appeal in a protracted mining rights dispute between Taurai Mukuzunga and others, and Musasiyane Mashonganyika, among other respondents.

The case centers on mining claims known as Umbrella 77A, which were initially registered by Musasiyane Mashonganyika in 2012. However, the Provincial Mining Director cancelled the registration in 2017, asserting that the area was not open for prospecting when the claims were pegged.

This cancellation was later reversed by a subsequent PMD, allowing Mashonganyika to retain control of the claims.

Mashonganyika then secured a High Court interdict against the Mukuzunga group, who were conducting mining activities through the Mukuzunga Mining Syndicate.

Justice Regis Dembure of the High Court granted the interdict, affirming Mashonganyika’s registration certificate as a clear entitlement to the mining site.

The Mukuzunga group’s initial appeal to the Supreme Court was dismissed due to a technical defect in the citation of parties. Undeterred, they filed an application for condonation and extension of time to appeal, which was opposed by Mashonganyika.

Justice Nicholas Mathonsi, presiding over the matter in chambers, dismissed Mashonganyika’s preliminary objection that the application was defective for lacking the High Court record.

The judge clarified that Rule 43(1) of the Supreme Court Rules only required a copy of the judgment a quo. Additionally, the court rejected the Mukuzunga group’s objection to the opposing affidavit, finding no substantive evidence of its invalidity.

Addressing the merits of the application, Justice Mathonsi acknowledged that the delay in filing the appeal was not excessive and that the explanation for the delay was satisfactory. The court also considered the Mukuzunga group’s argument that Mashonganyika’s mining certificate could be invalid, given the PMD’s reversal of the original cancellation.

While Justice Mathonsi noted that the registration certificate typically signifies a clear right, he emphasized the legal complexities raised by the PMD’s reversal.

Citing the case of Stonezim Granite (Pvt) Ltd v The Provincial Mining Director Mashonaland East & Anor SC 1/24, the court acknowledged the PMD’s authority to cancel such certificates and the need to examine the validity of the reversal.

The court concluded that the applicants had presented an arguable case, justifying the granting of condonation and the extension of time for appeal. The Mukuzunga group was granted five days to file their notice of appeal, and the court made no order for costs.