The Environmental Case Law Index is a collection of judgments from 10 African countries on topics relating to environmental law, both substantive and procedural. The collection focuses on cases where an environmental interest interacts with governmental or private interests.
Get started on finding judgments that are relevant to you by browsing the topic list on the left of the screen. Click the arrows next to the topic names to reveal a detailed list of sub-topics. Most judgments are accompanied by a short summary written by subject-area expert postgraduate students from the University of Cape Town.
Read also JIFA's Environmental Country Reports for SADC
Genesis Mining SYndicate v Muguti and 3 Others (HC 1549/21) [2022] ZWBHC 23 (27 January 2022); 
Environmental law Minerals and energy Environmental law Energy Minerals and energy Environmental law Mining and Resources Law Mineral Rights Ownership Mining and Resources Law Index EL IndexThe applicant sought an interdict whereby the respondents and their agents were ordered to stop milling operations in a specific mining area.
In 2019, the applicant submitted an application for a Special Grant, which was granted by the Ministry of Mines and Mining Development (Ministry). In terms of the Special Grant, the applicant was authorised to carry out mining operations in an area covered by the said Special Grant.
In 2021, the applicant dispatched its employees and heavy machinery to the area to commence mining operations. However, its employees were met and threatened by the respondents’ employees, who claimed that the area had been allocated to them. They could not, however, produce any documentation to this effect.
The court looked at the requirements for the granting of an interdict. Firstly, a prima facie right must be established. Secondly, a well-grounded apprehension of irreparable harm must exist. Thirdly, there must exist no other remedy and, lastly, the balance of convenience must favour the applicant. The court held that the applicant has satisfied all the requirements. It held that the respondents failed to show any lawful right for their interference in the applicant’s mining operations. The order was granted.
 |
 |
 |