S v Tapi (HCB 61 of 2004) [2004] ZWBHC 44 (24 March 2004)

{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\uc1 \deff0\deflang1033\deflangfe1033{\fonttbl{\f0\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}Times New Roman;}}{\colortbl;\red0\green0\blue0;\red0\green0\blue255;\red0\green255\blue255;\red0\green255\blue0; \red255\green0\blue255;\red255\green0\blue0;\red255\green255\blue0;\red255\green255\blue255;\red0\green0\blue128;\red0\green128\blue128;\red0\green128\blue0;\red128\green0\blue128;\red128\green0\blue0;\red128\green128\blue0;\red128\green128\blue128; \red192\green192\blue192;}{\stylesheet{\nowidctlpar\adjustright \fs20\kerning28\cgrid \snext0 Normal;}{\*\cs10 \additive Default Paragraph Font;}}{\info{\author John Reid-Rowland}{\operator MR HILL}{\creatim\yr2002\mo7\dy31\hr8\min23} {\revtim\yr2002\mo7\dy31\hr10\min38}{\version3}{\edmins2}{\nofpages4}{\nofwords867}{\nofchars4942}{\*\company LEGAL RESOURCES FOUNDATION}{\nofcharsws0}{\vern89}}\paperw11899\paperh16837\margl1797\margr1797 \widowctrl\ftnbj\aenddoc\noxlattoyen\expshrtn\noultrlspc\dntblnsbdb\nospaceforul\hyphcaps0\viewkind1\viewscale100 \fet0\sectd \pgnrestart\linex0\headery709\footery709\colsx709\sectdefaultcl {\header \pard\plain \nowidctlpar \tqc\tx4320\tqr\tx8640\adjustright \fs20\kerning28\cgrid {\kerning0 \par }}{\footer \pard\plain \nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4320\tqr\tx8640\adjustright \fs20\kerning28\cgrid {\kerning0 \par }}{\*\pnseclvl1\pnucrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang{\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl2\pnucltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang{\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl3\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang{\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl4\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang{\pntxta )}} {\*\pnseclvl5\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang{\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl6\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang{\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl7\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang{\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl8 \pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang{\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl9\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang{\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}\pard\plain \qr\nowidctlpar\adjustright \fs20\kerning28\cgrid {\fs24\lang2057 \par Judgment No. HB 44/2002 \par \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab Case No. HC 2867/2000 \par }\pard \nowidctlpar\adjustright {\fs24\lang2057 \par }{\b\fs24\lang2057 CHASE MINERAL (PVT) LTD \par \par versus \par \par EDMOTH NDLOVU MADZIKITA \par \par }{\fs24\lang2057 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE \par SIBANDA J \par BULAWAYO 2 FEBRUARY 2001 & 30 MAY 2002 \par \par }{\i\fs24\lang2057 J Tshuma}{\fs24\lang2057 for the applicant \par }{\i\fs24\lang2057 Adv. T Cherry }{\fs24\lang2057 for the respondent \par \par }{\b\fs24\lang2057 \tab SIBANDA J:\tab }{\fs24\lang2057 In this application the applicant seeks an order couched in the \par \par following terms: \par \tab Applicant be and is hereby granted leave to execute the judgment in case \tab number HC 1225/2000 entitling it to evict respondent pending the hearing of \tab the appeal noted by the respondent in case number HC 1225/2000 with costs at \tab an attorney and client scale. \par \par \tab When the matter came up for the hearing I granted the order sought. The legal \par \par practitioner for the respondent has written seeking reasons for my order, he explains \par \par that he seeks those reasons in order to explain to his client, presumably why the \par \par respondent lost. My reasons are set out herein under. \par \par \tab The applicant is the registered title holder of the following mineral claims:- \par \tab (a)\tab Stella City A 10336BM \par \tab (b)\tab Stella City B 10337BM \par \tab (c)\tab Stella City C 10338BM \par \tab (d)\tab Stella City D 10339BM \par \par \tab On 29 May 2000, applicant instituted proceedings under case number HC \par \par 1225/2000 seeking an order for the eviction of the respondent from its registered \par \par claims }{\i\fs24\lang2057 supra,}{\fs24\lang2057 with costs. The application was heard jointly with other matters \par \par involving the same parties in case numbers HC 879/2000 and HC 1314/2000. \par \par Judgment was handed down by this court in which }{\i\fs24\lang2057 inter alia}{\fs24\lang2057 , the court granted an \par \par order of eviction against the respondent from applicant\rquote s registered claims }{\i\fs24\lang2057 supra}{\fs24\lang2057 . \par \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab 44/02 \par \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab -2- \par \par \tab Pursuant to the judgment, the applicant issued a writ of ejectment following \par \par respondent\rquote s refusal to voluntarily move out of the claims. The main reason advanced \par \par by the respondent for the said refusal is that the respondent has noted an appeal \par \par against the eviction order granted in case number HC 1225/2000 sought to be \par \par enforced. The eviction order should await the outcome of the appeal so goes the \par \par argument, as at common law an appeal has the effect of staying the execution of a \par \par judgment or order appealed against. \par \par \tab The disputes between the parties relate to the ownership and mining claims of \par \par minerals set out }{\i\fs24\lang2057 supra}{\fs24\lang2057 . It is not in dispute that the said mineral claims are all \par \par registered in the name of the applicant. That the respondent has in fact instituted \par \par proceedings seeking an order for specific performance in respect of the same claims \par \par against a 3rd party that is for the transfer of \ldblquote Stella claims\rdblquote to himself in case number \par \par HC 3209/99. }{\b\fs24\lang2057 \par }{\fs24\lang2057 \tab \par \tab The rights of parties for the ownership of minerals are governed by the \par \par provisions of the mines and Minerals Act (Chapter 21:05). Section 172 of the Act \par \par provides; \par \par \tab \ldblquote ... every holder of a registered block of claim other than precious metal reef \tab claims shall possess the following rights- \par \tab (a)\tab the exclusive right of mining any ore or deposit of the mineral in \tab \tab \tab respect of which the block is registered which occurs within the \tab \tab \tab vertical limits of his block.\rdblquote \par \tab \par \tab It will be seen, therefore, that the applicant, as the holder of the registered \par \par claims, has the exclusive rights of mining the claims under dispute. Such rights are \par \par protected by section 379 of the Act which provides; \par \par \par \par \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab \par }\pard \qr\nowidctlpar\adjustright {\fs24\lang2057 44/02 \par }\pard \nowidctlpar\adjustright {\fs24\lang2057 \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab -3- \par \par \tab \ldblquote any person who breaks, severs or removes any mineral from any mining \tab location, reef or deposits, or who takes, removes or conceals any minerals, \tab slag, slimes, amalgam, residues, tailings or concentrates, the product of any \tab mining location reef or deposit with intent to deprive the lawful owner or \tab holder thereof, shall be guilty of theft and liable to be prosecuted and punished \tab accordingly.\rdblquote \par \par \tab It is thus in so far as it is submitted that the respondent has been, in fact, \par \par working on applicant\rquote s claims, he is therefore guilty of contravening section 379 of \par \par the Act. To suggest that the eviction order be suspended or stayed pending appeal in \par \par case number 1225/2000, so as to enable the respondent to continue mining amounts to \par \par authorising the contravention of section 379 of the Act. That would create an \par \par untainable situation in which this court would not only be condoning but authorising \par \par the criminal conduct of the respondent in breach of the provisions of the Act. \par \par \tab The provision at common law that notice of appeal has the effect of staying a \par \par writ of execution could not, in my respectful view, have been intended to operate or \par \par come into effect in circumstances where such stay of execution had the effect of \par \par perpetuating the commission of an offence or criminal conduct. It could only have \par \par been intended to come into effect where both parties had, in the dispute, rights \par \par lawfully pending final determination and resolution by the court of appeal. That \par \par situation does not obtain in the instant case. In this case if the eviction were to be \par \par stayed pending appeal, that would create a judicial anomaly where the court, becomes \par \par party to respondent\rquote s unlawfully conduct in breach of the provisions of the Act. \par \par Further such unlawful conduct and operations of the respondent would be highly \par \par prejudicial to the applicant because the minerals that would be extracted by the \par \par respondent could not be recovered and the applicant would sustain considerable and \par \par irreparable loss. \par \par \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab 44/02\tab \par \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab -4- \par \par \tab It follows therefore that it is highly improper for the respondent to seek the \par \par sanction of this court in respect of his criminal conduct. I would for these reasons \par \par grant the order. \par \par \tab Accordingly, the applicant be and is hereby granted leave to execute the \par \par judgment in case number 1225/2000 entitling it to evict respondent pending the \par \par hearing of the appeal noted by the respondent in the case above referred. That the \par \par respondent shall pay the costs of this application at an attorney and client scale. \par \par \par \par \par }{\i\fs24\lang2057 Webb, Low & Barry}{\fs24\lang2057 applicant\rquote s legal practitioners \par }{\i\fs24\lang2057 Hwalima & Associates}{\fs24\lang2057 respondent\rquote s legal practitioners \par \par }{\lang2057 \par }}