HARARE – The High Court of Zimbabwe has ordered the Provincial Mining Director of Mashonaland West to grant RioZim Limited access to inspect and copy records pertaining to 19 disputed mining claims in Kadoma.
The ruling, delivered by Justice Samuel Deme, comes as part of RioZim’s preparation for an ongoing legal battle under case number HC 2587/18.
The dispute centres on mining claims originally transferred by RioZim to North Rand (Private) Limited in 1996.
RioZim, through its lawyers, Coghlan, Welsh and Guest, alleges a breach of contract, leading to a prior court order for the cancellation of the agreement.
However, Breckenridge Investments (Private) Limited, represented by Lunga Mazikana Attorneys, subsequently claimed ownership, resulting in the rescission of the cancellation order.
To prepare for the upcoming trial, RioZim sought access to records held by the Provincial Mining Director, which were initially denied. The company then filed an application with the High Court to compel the director to release the documents.
Breckenridge Investments, the fourth respondent in the case, opposed RioZim’s application, raising several preliminary objections, including arguments regarding the applicant’s authority, procedural bars, and the court’s jurisdiction.
These objections were largely dismissed by Justice Deme, who emphasized RioZim’s constitutional right to access information under Section 62 of the Zimbabwean Constitution.
The court ruled that the existing remedies cited by Breckenridge Investments, such as Rule 47 of the High Court Rules and provisions of the Freedom of Information Act and the Administrative Justice Act, did not preclude RioZim’s right to seek a mandatory interdict.
Justice Deme highlighted that the constitutional right of access to information, particularly for juristic persons, prevails over procedural rules.
“What is apparent from the provisions of s 4 of the Administrative Justice Act is that this Act does not take away this court’s jurisdiction to deal with the omissions and commissions made by the administrative authority in terms of any other existing law.
“Section 4(1) of the Administrative Justice Act subjects itself to any other law,” the judge stated.
“Thus, the remedy available in terms of s 4 of the Administrative Justice Act is not the sole remedy available. Section 62, as read with the Freedom of Information Act, provides other available remedies of enforcing the right of access to information.
“I am unable to deny this remedy derived from the existing law. Our courts recognise mandatory interdict as one of the available remedies at law to compel officials to release information which is in their custody.”
The court’s order compels the Provincial Mining Director to allow RioZim access to inspect and copy records for 19 specific mining claims located in Kadoma.
If the director fails to comply, the Minister of Mines and Mining Development is instructed to ensure compliance. In the event of continued non-compliance, the Sheriff of the High Court is authorised to facilitate access.
“In the event that the first Respondent does not comply with paragraph (A), the second Respondent be and is hereby compelled to instruct the first Respondent to allow the Applicant access to inspect and make copies of all the documents contained within the files listed in paragraph (A) of this Order for use in the trial under case number HC2587/18,” Justice Deme ruled.
“In the event that the first and second Respondents do not comply with paragraphs (A) and (B), the Sheriff of the High Court of Zimbabwe be and is hereby granted the authority of this honourable court to attend to the first Respondent’s office and to facilitate access to the Applicant to inspect and make copies of all the documents contained within the files listed in paragraph (A) of this Order for use in the trial under case number HC2587/18.”
The court ordered each party to bear its own costs, rejecting RioZim’s request for punitive costs against Breckenridge Investments.
