Online Reporter
Fidelis Munyoro
Chief Court Reporter
THE High Court has ruled on a procedural issue in a mining dispute involving Solomon’s Treasure (Pvt) Ltd, Mipple Trading Company (Pvt) Ltd, the Provincial Mining Director for Mashonaland Central Province and the Officer Commanding Zimbabwe Republic
Police (Bindura).
The case concerns mining claims on properties known as Xmas 6 and 3 and 148/9. The matter was brought as an urgent chamber application by Solomon’s Treasure, with the applicant seeking interim relief.
However, Mipple Trading submitted a counter-application alongside the urgent chamber application, triggering a review of whether the two could be heard as one composite application.
Justice Sylivia Chirawu-Mugomba highlighted the procedural implications of combining such applications, noting that urgent chamber applications and counter-court applications follow distinct rules and cannot be adjudicated simultaneously under one hearing.
She observed, “The remedy provided by a court application and an urgent chamber application is different. An urgent chamber application grants interim relief pending a final judgment, whereas a counter-court application seeks final relief.”
The judge ruled that the two processes are “akin to oil and water” and cannot be merged.
The court scrutinised procedural rules, particularly Rule 58 of the High Court Rules, which governs counter-applications. Justice Chirawu-Mugomba emphasised that Rule 58(8) allows for a counter-court application to be filed after a notice of opposition and
affidavit but does not extend to urgent chamber applications.
The judge further remarked, “I do not perceive anywhere in the [court’s prior] order that the matters should be heard together and one composite judgment be granted.”
The court’s decision effectively split the applications. The urgent chamber application will proceed as a standalone matter, while the counter-application will be addressed separately.
Justice Chirawu-Mugomba stated, “The court shall proceed to deal with the urgent chamber application as a standalone on a date to be allocated.”
No costs were awarded, as the procedural issue was raised by the court itself.
The ruling underscores the importance of maintaining procedural clarity in legal applications to avoid unintended consequences.
