Amaplat Mauritius Ltd and Amari Nickel Holdings Zimbabwe Ltd v Zimbabwe Mining Development Corporation and The Chief Mining Commissioner and Zimari Platinum (Pvt) Ltd and Zimari Nickel (Pvt) Ltd
Memoranda of UnderstandingInterdictUrgencyArbitrationMining Rights
Tags
MiningArbitrationInterdictMemorandum of Understanding
legislation
Statutes Cited
P
r
i
s
o
n
A
c
t
1
9
5
2
,
s
s
4
7
(
1
)
,
4
7
(
2
)
,
3
7
C
r
i
m
i
n
a
l
J
u
s
t
i
c
e
A
c
t
1
9
9
1
,
s
s
2
9
,
3
3
,
3
5
,
3
7
C
r
i
m
e
(
S
e
n
t
e
n
c
e
s
)
A
c
t
1
9
9
7
,
s
s
2
8
,
2
9
,
3
0
H
u
m
a
n
R
i
g
h
t
s
A
c
t
1
9
9
8
,
s
s
3
,
6
,
7
E
u
r
o
p
e
a
n
C
o
n
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
o
n
H
u
m
a
n
R
i
g
h
t
s
,
a
r
t
s
5
,
6
,
1
4
ai analysis
Case Summary
Key Issues
{"issue_text":"Whether the applicants have established urgency for their application to be heard","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Delay from 21 December 2010 to 18 January 2011 without explanation"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
The applicants sought an urgent interim interdict to prevent the first respondent from dealing with mining rights arising from Memoranda of Understanding concluded in 2006 and 2008. The first respondent had terminated the MOUs on 10 November 2010, but the applicants only filed their urgent application on 18 January 2011, without explaining the delay.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases