Online Reporter
Fidelis Munyoro
Chief Court Reporter
The High Court has granted a final interdict protecting mining company Agrivi Open Mining (Private) Limited from interference by Special Grant holder Ms Molly Dick, ruling that she cannot unilaterally disrupt the company’s operations on a 50-hectare mining area allocated under a joint venture agreement.
In his judgment, Justice Joel Mambara ruled that Ms Dick had unlawfully sought to interfere with Agrivi’s mining activities after claiming that one of the coordinates defining the joint venture area had been incorrectly recorded.
The dispute arose from a Joint Venture Agreement signed on 7 April 2021 under which Ms Dick, holder of Special Grant No. 6873 covering 186 hectares, allocated 50 hectares of the concession to Agrivi for mining operations.
An addendum signed in August 2022 confirmed that Agrivi had fulfilled its payment obligations and was entitled to undisturbed occupation and use of the allocated land.
Relations between the parties deteriorated after Ms Dick asserted that coordinate A in the agreement was erroneous and that the mistake had sparked a boundary dispute with a neighbouring farmer.
She argued that the mining area needed to be adjusted to conform to the actual limits of the special grant.
Justice Mambara ruled that while statutory corrections to mining boundaries could be made through lawful processes, Ms Dick could not use the alleged error as a basis for taking matters into her own hands.
“The respondent was not, in law, entitled to depart from that arrangement by merely asserting from the bar that one coordinate was mistaken,” the judge said, noting that no expert survey, official determination, or technical evidence had been presented to support the claim.
The court held that Agrivi had established a clear contractual right to operate within the designated 50-hectare area. That right flowed directly from the joint venture agreement and subsequent addendum, both of which remained valid and binding.
Justice Mambara emphasised that contracts voluntarily entered into by parties must be respected and enforced. The court rejected attempts to alter the agreement based on unproven allegations, stressing that contractual obligations cannot be suspended simply because circumstances later become inconvenient.
At the same time, the court acknowledged that any mining operations must remain within the lawful boundaries of Special Grant No. 6873. The judgment recognised the authority of mining regulators, including the Provincial Mining Director, to confirm or correct coordinates and beacon positions where necessary.
To balance the competing interests, the court ordered that Agrivi’s operational rights be protected while remaining subject to any lawful boundary adjustments made by competent mining authorities. Any such correction, however, must preserve the company’s allocated 50 hectares and must not alter the substance of the joint venture agreement.
The final order prohibits Ms Dick and anyone acting on her behalf from interfering with Agrivi’s mining operations. She was also directed to cease any unauthorised mining activities within the allocated area and was barred from bringing personnel or equipment there without Agrivi’s written consent.
The court declined Agrivi’s request for an immediate transfer of the mining area, finding that such relief would be premature because statutory procedures required under the Mines and Minerals Act had not yet been completed.
While Justice Mambara found that Ms Dick had acted improperly by resorting to self-help, he stopped short of imposing punitive costs. Instead, he ordered her to pay Agrivi’s legal costs on the ordinary scale.
The ruling effectively secures Agrivi’s control of the disputed mining area while leaving the door open for lawful boundary verification by mining authorities, setting the stage for any future technical adjustments to be handled through regulatory channels rather than private action.
