M

The matter dealt with an appeal against a decision of the High Court to dismiss a matter for want of jurisdiction. The appellant had sought an injunction against the respondents in a claim for nuisance and trespass on its mining area. The High Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the matter as a court of first instance since s 100 of the Mines and Minerals Development Act No. 11 of 2016 designated the High Court as an appellate court and not a court of first instance. 

The Court of Appeal considered whether the import of the act was to strip the High Court of jurisdiction by conferring jurisdiction to hear and determine all disputes in the Mines Appeals Tribunal. In interpreting the meaning of ss 96 to 100 of the act, the court cited the rule in Mazoka v Mwanawasa and Others (2005) ZR 138 to the effect that the literal rule of statutory interpretation would be applied unless it led to an absurdity. The court observed that a reading of the act did not grant the tribunal jurisdiction in all matters. The facts showed that the respondents did not have a mining licence and appeared to be trespassers, which subject matter the High Court had jurisdiction to determine. The court concluded that the High Court erred in holding that it did not have jurisdiction to entertain the matter.

Accordingly, the ruling was set aside and the case remitted to the High Court for trial.

This appeal arose from a High Court decision wherein the appellant was ordered to pay sand levy to the respondent. In the year 2000, the respondent sought information as to how much stone had been mined and sold. Such information was made available in 2007. The respondent claimed levies for the said period and the trial judge ruled in their favour. 

The court of appeal had to decide on whether the trial judge had erred in holding that sand levy was payable at any point and not just at checkpoints established by the council, that the trial judge had erred in law and in fact holding that levies were payable in arrears and that a person who mines sand or sells it does not necessarily need to go through a checkpoint to pay levy.

The court held that the by-law that stated that levy was payable at any check point did not mean that levy was only payable at a checkpoint and that a checkpoint was one of the places to get payment but not the only one.  Secondly, the court dismissed that levies could not be paid as arrears as ss 69(3) and (4) of the Local Government Act supported the fact that any levy not paid could be recoverable as debt, so the trial judge was correct

The case was dismissed