Amari Platinum Mauritius Limited and Amari Nickel Holdings Zimbabwe Limited and Zimbabwe Mining Development Corporation v Zimbabwe Mining Development Corporation and The Chief Mining Commissioner, Ministry of Mines and Mining Development and Zimari Platinum (Private) Limited and Zimari Nickel (Private) Limited

HH 26-11
                                                                                   HC 506/11



AMAPLAT MAURITIUS LIMITED
and
AMARI NICKEL HOLDINGS ZIMBABWE LIMITED
and

ZIMBABWE MINING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
versus
ZIMBABWE MINING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
and
THE CHIEF MINING COMMISSIONER’MINISTRY OF MINES AND MINING
DEVELOPMENT
and
ZIMARI PLATINUM (PRIVATE) LIMITED
and
ZIMARI NICKEL (PRIVATE) LIMITED


HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE
BHUNU J
HARARE, 24 January 2011


C F Dube, for the applicants
F Mutamangira, for the first respondent


   BHUNU J: This is an urgent application for interim relief in the following terms:

   “The first respondent be and is hereby interdicted from alienating or otherwise disposing of
   or dealing with the rights of the third and fourth respondents arising out of the memoranda
   of understanding concluded between the applicants and the first respondent at Harare on 25
   July 2008 and 13 October 2006, pending the outcome of an arbitration to be instituted by
   the applicants in Paris in accordance with the afore mentioned memoranda of
   understanding;

   The first, third and fourth respondents be interdicted from amending, alienating or
   changing the shareholding in and the share registers of the third and fourth respondents
   pending the outcome of the arbitration referred to in prayer 1 above;

   1.      The applicants be and are hereby ordered to institute the above mentioned
           proceedings within sixty days of this order; and

   2.      Leave be and is hereby granted to the applicants”

        The matter could not be heard today because the first respondent only filed its
opposing papers this morning shortly before the hearing at 9:00 hours. The parties are agreed
2
HH 26-11
HC 506/11

that the matter be postponed sine die to enable the applicants to go through the opposing
papers and to file the necessary responses.
       The applicants have now applied for an order substantially in the same format as the
interim order being sought in the main application to protect their interests pending my
determination in the main matter. The interim order sought reads:

   “The application is postponed sine die.

       1. The applicants are ordered to give a replying affidavit by 31 January 2011.

       2. The parties are to give supplementary heads of argument by Thursday 3 February
          2011

       3. Pending the outcome of the hearing of this application:

            3.1 The first, third and fourth respondents are interdicted from alienating or
                otherwise disposing of or dealing with the mining rights, licenses and other
                business interests of the third and fourth arising out of the Memoranda of
                Understanding concluded between the applicants and the first respondent; and

            3.2 The first, third and fourth respondents are interdicted from amending, altering
                or changing the shareholding in and the registers of the third and fourth
                respondents”.

       The application is strenuously opposed by the first respondent on the basis that the
applicants want to smuggle the order they are seeking in the main application through the back
door. Counsel for the first respondent while viciously opposing the order being sought has
undertaken to advise his clients not to engage in the conduct complained of pending my
determination.
       It is a general rule of law and practice that parties must desist from conducting
themselves in a manner that seeks to obstruct, preempt, undermine or sabotage the outcome of
court proceedings.
       Generally speaking Zimbabweans are law abiding citizens. In that regard I do not see
the first respondent a statutory board for that matter acting contrary to the advice of its legal
practitioners. For that reason I consider it wholly unnecessary to grant the interim order sought
pending my determination in the main matter.
       The application for an interdict pending my determination in the main matter
accordingly fails with costs being costs in the cause. The first respondent is however
                                                                                         3
                                                                                  HH 26-11
                                                                                 HC 506/11

admonished to abide by the advice of its legal practitioner regarding the maintenance of the
status quo ante pending my determination in the main matter.




Dube,Manikai & Hwacha, applicants legal practitioners
Mutamangira & Associates, first respondent’s legal practitioners