Environmental Case Law Index

This was an appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal to strike out the appellant’s appeal on the ground that it only paid a fraction of the filing fee. 

The respondents had filled an action claiming monetary compensation for a diesel spill from the appellant's facility which polluted the respondents’ water. The appellant admitted the spillage and judgment was passed against it. On appeal it paid N200 instead of N5000 to file documents into the registry. The respondents urged the court to dismiss the appeal on the basis of this and other irregularities. The appeal arose from an attempt by the appellant to regularise the payment of fees prior to the filing of the appeal but this was dismissed as incompetent due to payment of inadequate fees.
 
The court considered whether the lower court was right to strike out the appeal. It observed that a discretionary decision based on a principle that inadequate filing fees was fatal to an appeal was a wrong exercise of discretion. The court differentiated non-payment of fees from payment of inadequate fees. It held that a court of law could not allow the provisions of an enactment to be read in a way that would deny citizens access to court, thereby denying a litigant access to justice. It found that the lower court’s striking out of the appeal denied the appellant access to court.

Accordingly, the appeal was upheld and the appellant ordered to pay the correct fees.

The court considered a summons to strike out a notice of appeal. The respondent, as applicant in this case, applied to the court for an order that the notice of appeal be struck out with costs on the grounds that it was obviously frivolous, vexation and an abuse of process. The respondent (applicant), contended that the appeal was not competent as it purported to bring up matters that were not raised in the court below for the assessment hearing.

The court considered whether the appeal was admissible or whether it constituted an abuse of process and should be struck out. It was held that the respondent (applicant) needed to satisfy the court that the grounds of appeal were obviously frivolous, vexation and an abuse of process.

The court found that the appellant was not challenging the judgement or liability, but merely the quantum of damages arrived at following the assessment of damages. This, the court held, could not be interpreted as an attempt to re-litigate the matter, as the respondent (applicant) alleged. The court, therefore, concluded that it could not be said with any degree of certainty that the appeal was obviously frivolous, vexation and an abuse of process. 

Accordingly, the application failed and each party was ordered to bear its own costs.

This was an application for an order of remedy of spoliation and an interdict.

The applicantĺs main argument was that the actions of the respondentsĺ occupation of the diamond mining site at the Chiadzwa Concession amounted to an act of spoliation against the fifth respondent.

Firstly, the court determined whether the applicant (a foreign company) was required to furnish security for the costs of the respondents before the application could proceed. The court noted that such orders are matters of its discretion and are only issued when there is a reason to believe that a company will be unable to pay the costs of the suit.

Secondly, the court found that the second to fourth respondents had come to court with Ĺdirty handsĺ but had cleansed themselves.

Thirdly, it was held that the applicant (a shareholder of the fifth respondent) had the locus standi to bring the derivative action as an exception to the rule in Foss v Harbottle [1843] 2 Hare 461, 67 ER 189.

Finally, the court found that the applicant had proved the elements of spoliation: peaceful and undisturbed possession and the act of spoliation on a balance of probabilities. However, the court held that allowing the fifth respondent to resume mining operations as before, when the right to do so expired, would be contrary to public policy. Nevertheless, the court noted that the applicant was entitled to a final order and ordered the restoration of its rights when the validity of the special grants was regularized.

The origin of the application is an interim interdict prohibiting the first, second and third respondents from carrying out mining activities and ordering the fourth and fifth respondents to clear illegals who were working at the mine. The first respondent sought a review of this order and got an interim interdict that ordered for the eviction of the applicant and prohibition from mining.

This application arose when the applicant sought direction from the judges in chambers for anticipation of a return date and also rescinding the eviction order.

The court applied Order 33 of the High Court Rules and held that the pending review suspended the operation of the order issued in the magistrate court. Consequently, the applicant could not exercise the rights conferred upon him unless the review was determined in his favor.
The court found that the mine lies in the applicant’s plot. However, the court found it important for peace to prevail at the mine and that both parties be removed from the mine pending resolution of their dispute.

The court held that the applicant was able to prove all the requirements of an interdict: he had a right to mine; he would suffer irreparable damage if the respondent continued with their mining operations; he had no alternative remedy and he proved his case on a balance of probabilities against the respondent.

Accordingly, the interdict was granted pending the resolution of the dispute and the security guards of both parties were ordered to guard the mine jointly. 

This was an application for the discharge of the accused persons for lack of evidence pursuant to s 198 (3) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act. The state had alleged that the accused persons were acting in common purpose through a series of fraudulent misrepresentations to the Government of Zimbabwe, the Ministry of Mines and Mining Development and Zimbabwe Mining Development Corporation (ZMDC) and induced ZMDC to enter into a joint venture agreement of diamond mining with Core Mining (Pvt) Ltd. They fronted Benny Steinmeitz Group Resources (BSGR) as its guarantor and on that representation, the government approved a contract, it never would have otherwise approved. 

Relying on the parole evidence rule that posits that parties are strictly bound by the four corners of the contractual document and nothing outside it, the court held that both government and ZMDC cannot be heard to complain that they were duped into signing the contractual document under the mistaken belief that BSGR was standing as guarantor for Core Mining when the contractual document makes no mention of BSGR at all.

Court further held that the state closed its case without leading any evidence pertaining to the misrepresentations allegedly made by the accused concerning the due diligence exercise on Core Mining. That misrepresentation is a vital component of the crime of fraud without which the crime cannot be committed. The state having failed to establish a prima facie case against the accused, it was accordingly ordered that both accused be acquitted and discharged.

The applicant in this High Court case was seeking interim orders that (1) the first and second respondent be ordered to restore the supply of water from Blanket Dam in Gwanda to the applicant’s mine; (2) the first and the second respondent be interdicted from interfering with the applicant’s possession of his water supply infrastructure without obtaining a court order to that effect. 

The facts were that the first and second respondent disconnected the water supply that fed the applicants mine and the neighbouring community. The applicants argued that the respondents infringed its right to water under s77 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe. The respondents, on the other side, argued that the matter was not urgent, and they were entitled to disconnect the water supply as the applicant failed to pay the water bills, thereby ending the contract between them.

Thus, the main issue for determination was whether the applicant had satisfied the requirement for an interim order to be issued; 

On the first issue, the Court held that the applicant had satisfied the requirements for an interim order which are, (i) prima facie right; (ii) reasonable apprehension of irreparable injury; (iii) no alternative relief available; (iv) and the balance of convenience favouring the granting of the interdict. 

As a result, the interim order was allowed pending the main trial and the hearing of the interdict.

The court considered an appeal against the High Court’s decision not to interdict arbitration proceedings. 

The facts leading to the appeal were that a joint venture was entered into by the appellant and two mining companies. A dispute subsequently arose which the appellant claimed rendered the contract void ab initio. The first respondent sought a declaration that the contract was valid and soon after, referred the dispute to arbitration. However, the parties failed to agree on an arbitrator and one was appointed by an arbitral institution. Although the appellant boycotted a pre-arbitration meeting, the arbitrator proceeded, identified preliminary issues, and ordered the parties to file submissions. This prompted the appellant to file an urgent application to prevent the arbitration proceedings. The High Court’s refusal grant the interdict is what the appellant appealed against.

Before considering the appeal, the court observed that it was strange that the there was no nexus between the relief sought in the court below and that sought on appeal. The court went on to point out that the appellant refused to correct an error in its citation of the respondent in the proceedings but instead sought to hold out the matter as undefended. This was an abuse of court process. On this basis alone the proceedings could not be sustained.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. The court held that the wrong citation was compounded by the appellant’s refusal to rectify the error and made an order for exemplary costs. 

This was an urgent application by the applicant, seeking an order to stop the respondents from mining gold ore from an area which the applicant had a prospecting licence.

The court set out the requirements of an interdict and held that the applicant was required to prove the existence of a prima facie right. Secondly, that there was an injury actually committed or reasonably apprehended. Thirdly, that there was  an absence of a similar or adequate remedy. Lastly, that the balance of convenience favoured the grant of the relief.

The court pointed out that the applicant had other remedies available. Such remedies included using the Ministry of Mines to demarcate the area between the parties. Secondly, ore claimed by the applicants was held as an exhibit in a criminal case, thereby removing urgency in the application and any irreparable harm that could be occasioned by waiting.

Accordingly, the court declined to deal with the matter on urgent basis, dismissed the application and ordered the applicants to pay the respondents’ costs on an ordinary scale.