By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

THE MINISTER FOR ENERGY & MINERALS…..RESPONDENT………………….RULINGThis is an application or interim injunction to restrain the respondent fromhanding over the disputed area to Placer Dome Inc. or any one else pending the finaldetermination of the main application, Order 37 rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure acode; 1966, are cited as enabling provisions Mr. Change, Counsel for the respondent hastaken issue with that citation and I will recur to that point later.Looking at the materials set out in the affidavits, and after hearing the advocates, Ifind it as established prime facie that the applicants have worked on the project, forseveral year, made discoveries of substantial gold deposit at great expense and that nooffer of compensation has been made to them for what they have done. As already foundby this Court, the applicants prospecting licence expire on 27/8/87 and their applicationfor renewal of that licence has not been dealt with by the respondent according to theprovisions of the relevant law. It is common ground that Placer Dome have been handedover the area by the respondent. Mr. Change has argued that under section 35 of theMining Act, 1979, The applicants were mere licenses. It might be so, but the provisionsof that Act are the very ones the respondent is said to have paid no regard.Dr. Lamwai, Counsel for the applicants, has submitted that the injury which theapplicants, on the one hand; might sustain if the injunction is refused and they shouldultimately turn out to be successful is mush more that the injury which the respondent, onthe other hand, would suffer if the injunction is granted and he should ultimately turn outto be right. In my judgment that submission right.As observed at the outset, Mr. Chenge has taken issue with the citation of Order37 rules 1 and 2 as enabling provisions. In reply Dr. Lamwai has made reference tosection 2(2) of the Judicature and Application of Laws Ordinance, Cap 453, and Act No55 of 1968 and pointed out, correctly, that the Chief Justice has yet to make any rulesprescribing the procedure for application of this nature. He has pleaded, essentially thatthose provisions of the C.P.C have been cited for want of any prescribed rules under theOrdinance.I appreciate Dr Lamwai’s point and predicament. I take the view, however, thatindependently of any questions as to statutory provisions the High Court has in generaloriginal and independent jurisdiction to issue interlocutory orders to prevent what itconsiders continuing or intended injury to a party where it appears to the Court to be justas well as convenient. And the jurisdiction of this Court in granting interim injunction sofar as it partakes of the nature of preventive remedy, is one that may be exercised withoutdifficulty in the majority of cases, and rests upon clearly settled principles.Where such injunction is sought, it is not necessary that the Court should be satisfied finda case which would entitle the applicant to relief at all events; it is quite sufficient for it240