Case Law

Only available on StudyMode
  • Download(s) : 55
  • Published : February 13, 2013
Open Document
Text Preview
African Consolidated Resources Plc and Others Minister of Mines and Mining Development and Others (HC 6411/07) [2010] ZWHHC 86 (6 September 2010) Download original filesPDF format RTF format| | Bookmark/share this page| [Context] [Hide Context]

HH 205-2010
HC 6411/07

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE
HELD AT HARARE

In the matter between:-
AFRICAN CONSOLIDATED RESOURCES Plc
and
DASHALOO INVESTMENTS (PVT) LTD
and
POSSESSION INVESTMENTS (PVT) LTD
and
HEAVY STUFF INVESTMENTS (PVT) LTD
and
OLEBILE INVESTMENTS (PVT) LTD
versus
THE MINISTER OF MINES AND MINING DEVELOPMENT
and
ZIMBABWE MINING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
and
THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Opposed Application
HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE
HUNGWE J
HARARE, 25 August & 6 September 201U
Mr. J Samukange, For the applicants
Mr F Mutamangiru For the first respondent
Mr./ Muchada For the second respondent
Mr JR Tsivama For the third respondent

HUNGWE J: This is an application for the rescission of a judgment of my own that I gave on 24 September 2009 in favour of the applicant's regarding the legality of the registration of various mining claims in the names of the applicants. It is important that I set out the order which I gave then and what thereafter occurred leading to the present proceedings.

On 24 September 2009, I gave the following order:
"1. African Consolidated Resources pic claims issued to the third, fourth, fifth and sixth applicants within the area previously covered by Exclusive prospecting order 1523 held by Kiniberlitic Searches (Pvt) Ltd are valid and have remained valid since the date they were originally pegged. 2. The right granted to the third respondent by virtue of the special grant shall not apply in respect of the African Consolidated Resources pic claims area as indicated on annexure 'B' to the papers. In that regard it is hereby ordered that third respondent cease all its prospecting and mining activities in the said area. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:

3. That the second respondent returns to the applicants' possession the 129 000 carats of diamonds seized from the applicants' offices in I larare on 15 January 2007. 4. The second respondent returns to the applicants all diamonds acquired by the second respondent from the African Consolidated Resources pic claims area using the register kept by the second respondent in compliance with the Kiniberlitic Process Certification Scheme. 5. That fourth respondent be and is hereby ordered to direct the police to cease interfering with the applicants' prospecting and mining activities. 6. That first, second and third respondents pay applicants' costs on a legal practitioner and client scale, the one paying the others to be absolved. 7. Any appeal noted against this order shall not suspend the operation of this order." The second and third respondents noted an appeal to the Supreme Court. They made a chamber application under SC 230/09 seeking to set aside para 7 of the above order. In SC 1/10 the Supreme Court issued an order effectively setting aside that paragraph. The appeal is, however, still pending in the Supreme Court. In the meantime, on 28 April 2010, first respondent, through his legal practitioners, addressed correspondence to the registrar of this court seeking directions in terms of Rule 4C of the Rules of this Court. The relevant portion of that correspondence reads: '"3. In arriving at this decision (the order of 24 September 2009 above) the court determined the issue of the currency of De Beers 1520 and 1523 Exclusive Prospecting Orders. ("EPOs") over the Marange area ("Marange") and whether an application for the extension of EPO 1523 had the effect of reserving the ACR claims area from prospecting and pegging. 4. The court held that the EPO's were invalid by reason of their expiration and that, consequently, the application for extension of EPO 1523 did not have the effect of reserving the ACR claims area. 5. The Court further held that the...
tracking img