Back to top
Zalari has raised $2 million USD in a founding round led by Nyamaropa Technologies
Harare High Court

Seabridge Mine (Pvt) Ltd v The Mining Director, Mashonaland Central N.O. and Another and BBL Mining Syndicate

HH 395-17

Case Details

Court
Harare High Court
Date
28 June 2017
Citation
HH 395-17
Neutral Citation
[2017] ZWHH 395
Outcome
unknown
Case Type
Review

Bench

Presiding
CHAREWA J
Full Bench
CHAREWA J
Areas of Law
Administrative LawMining LawProcedural Law
Keywords
mining claimsreview applicationprocedural defectHigh Court Rulesnullity
Tags
administrative reviewmining rightsprocedural compliance
legislation
Statutes Cited
  • High Court Act
  • Mines and Minerals Act
  • Administrative Justice Act
ai analysis
Case Summary

Key Issues

  • {"issue_text":"Whether the application for review complied with the procedural requirements of Order 33 Rule 257 of the High Court Rules","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Application brought under Rule 256, notice of application used Form 29, no grounds for review stated in notice"}
  • {"issue_text":"Whether failure to state grounds for review in notice of application renders the application a nullity","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Application made solely in terms of Rule 256, Rule 257 requires grounds to be stated in notice"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case

Background

The applicant sought review of the Mining Director's decision allowing the third respondent to mine on its registered mining location. The application was brought under Order 33 Rule 256 for review but failed to comply with Rule 257 by not stating grounds for review in the notice of application.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases
Open in Zalari →