Fidelis Munyoro
Chief Court Reporter
THE High Court has overturned the cancellation of Siganda Mining Syndicate’s Special Grant 10749, ruling that the Secretary for Mines and Mining Development acted unfairly and unlawfully by failing to notify the miner of its statutory right to appeal.
In a judgment delivered last week in Bulawayo, Justice Feresi Chakanyuka set aside the cancellation, finding that the Secretary had become functus officio after issuing the mining grant and could not summarily reverse an administrative decision that had already created legal rights.
The court further questioned the timing of the cancellation, which was communicated on October 14, 2026, the exact day Tarum Syndicate was evicted from the disputed mining premises by the Sheriff.
“The only reasonable inference is that the cancellation was actuated by hostility, retaliation and a desire to frustrate the applicant who had successfully executed a court order against the first respondent,” Justice Chakanyuka held.
The legal dispute arose from competing mining interests between Siganda and Tarum. The latter argued that its Special Grant 10503 covered the RA MTN 005 mining area, claiming Siganda’s subsequent grant had been improperly issued over ground already covered by its pre-existing mining rights.
Siganda approached the court to challenge the Secretary’s decision, arguing that the dispute over overlapping mining coordinates had already been structurally resolved before its grant was issued on May 18, 2026. The applicant stated that Alrosa Zimbabwe (Private) Limited had adjusted Tarum’s mining coordinates to eliminate the overlap, paving the way for the issuance of its special grant.
Siganda also accused the Secretary of bias, malice, and improper conduct, noting that authorities had halted its operations while allowing Tarum to continue exploiting minerals in the disputed area. It submitted that the cancellation violated section 50 of the Mines and Minerals Act, which mandates a minimum of 30 days’ notice of an intended cancellation alongside notification of the holder’s right to appeal to the Minister.
Tarum opposed the application, insisting that Siganda’s grant had encroached upon land not open to prospecting and pegging, and that the Secretary had acted lawfully to correct an administrative error. Government respondents also defended the cancellation as a necessary move to protect the integrity of the mining registry, arguing that Siganda had been afforded an opportunity to be heard through written representations and a subsequent head office hearing.
However, Justice Chakanyuka found that the cancellation notice fatally failed to inform Siganda of its right to appeal to the Minister. The judge emphasized that section 3(2)(c) of the Administrative Justice Act strictly requires administrative authorities to notify affected persons of any applicable right of review or appeal.
“The third respondent’s failure to communicate the right to appeal deprived the applicant of an opportunity to utilize a remedy that is provided for by the law,” the judge ruled, adding that the omission amounted to a breach of procedural fairness sufficient to invalidate the administrative action. “The third respondent could not purport to make a decision which abolish a right that they had created for the applicant.”
The court also criticised the Secretary for actively opposing the review application despite the direct allegations of bias raised against his office.
“The third respondent’s attitude defies the tenets of natural justice,” Justice Chakanyuka observed, concluding that the authorities had failed to demonstrate that the cancellation followed a fair and transparent process.
The High Court granted the application for review, set aside the cancellation of Special Grant 10749, and ordered Tarum Syndicate and the third respondent to pay the costs of the suit.
