The appeal essentially raises one issue for determination, which in my view is dispositive of the whole matter; Whether the court was correct in finding that the appellant’s entry on to the a quo mining claims warranted the granting of as well as the mandamus van spolie, interdict. The following facts are largely not disputed. Firstly, the appellants did effect entry onto the disputed premises without the backing of a court order or process”. The “due deponent to the appellants’ opposing affidavit, who is the third appellant in Muyengwa Motsi admitted the same in his opposing affidavit when he stated; casu, a quo, I entered the mine premises. I did not need permission from anyone to do so. “Indeed Applicant has been mining thereat illegally for the past 2 years. I did not use any false pretence. Indeed our intention has and continues to be to take over the mines and occupy same as can be envisaged (sic) by the numerous court orders granted in our favour which applicant blatantly refuses to recognise (see case no. HC 26/11, HC 3208/13 and HC 1194/13).” Secondly, the appellants in addition to this, admitted to the deployment of armed guards by the entrance to the disputed premises. The third appellant stated as follows in his opposing affidavit; para 3 “Ad however the second respondent is within his rights to place guards at the mine to … ensure that all the ore that was mined illegally does not leave the premises …” Given these admissions, which seem to give credence to the respondent’s claim that the appellants forcefully entered the disputed mine premises, the Judge I a quo, find, was correct in his observation to the following effect: a nutshell, this is an admission that the respondents have effectively entered the “In mine. They did so without any permission from anyone In the ………. casu applicant was dispossessed against his will and without the authority or order of, this court. In acting as they did, whether as principals or agents, all respondents took the
The appeal essentially raises one issue for determination, which in my view is dispositive of the whole matter; Whether the court a quo was correct in finding that the appellant’s entry on to the mining claims warranted the granting of mandamus van spolie, as well as the interdict. The following facts are largely not disputed. Firstly, the appellants did effect entry onto the disputed premises without the backing of a court order or “due process”. The deponent to the appellants’ opposing affidavit, Muyengwa Motsi who is the third appellant in casu, admitted the same in his opposing affidavit a quo, when he stated; “Indeed I entered the mine premises. I did not need permission from anyone to do so. Applicant has been mining thereat illegally for the past 2 years. I did not use any false pretence. Indeed our intention has and continues to be to take over the mines and occupy same as can be envisaged (sic) by the numerous court orders granted in our favour which applicant blatantly refuses to recognise (see case no. HC 26/11, HC 3208/13 and HC 1194/13).” Secondly, the appellants in addition to this, admitted to the deployment of armed guards by the entrance to the disputed premises. The third appellant stated as follows in his opposing affidavit; “Ad para 3 … however the second respondent is within his rights to place guards at the mine to ensure that all the ore that was mined illegally does not leave the premises …” Given these admissions, which seem to give credence to the respondent’s claim that the appellants forcefully entered the disputed mine premises, the Judge a quo, I find, was correct in his observation to the following effect: “In a nutshell, this is an admission that the respondents have effectively entered the mine. They did so without any permission from anyone ………. In casu the applicant was dispossessed against his will and without the authority or order of, this court. In acting as they did, whether as principals or agents, all respondents took the
SC%2029-15%20-%20BASE%20MINERALS%20ZIMBABWE%20%28PTY%29%20LIMITED%20v%20MABWE%20MINERALS%20%28PVT%29%20LIMITED.docx