THE Supreme Court has struck off an appeal filed by Inducon Investments (Pvt) Ltd after ruling that its notice of appeal was fatally defective for failing to state the “exact relief sought”, bringing a decisive end to a prolonged mining dispute involving Stoncor Mining Supplies (Pvt) and its directors.
In a judgment delivered by Supreme Court judge Justice Alphas Chitakunye, sitting with Justices Chinembiri Bhunu and Lavender Makoni, the court recently held that the appeal did not comply with rule 44(1)(e) of the Supreme Court Rules, 2025, requiring appellants to clearly set out the exact relief being sought.
The dispute arose from a High Court order that evicted Inducon from mining claims owned by Stoncor, whose shareholders Cristiano Santini and Franco D’Agnolo, were also cited in the proceedings.
Inducon argued that its occupation of the claims in Uzumba, Mashonaland East, was based on an agreement of sale rather than a tribute agreement, insisting it had a continuing right to remain on the mining site.
The High Court rejected that argument and ordered its eviction, prompting the appeal.
However, the Supreme Court found that the appeal was fundamentally flawed with Justice Chitakunye noting that the relief sought in the notice of appeal failed to specify what the court was being asked to grant.
“The phrase ‘exact relief sought’ means that an appellant must inform the court of the relief he/she wants,” the court said, adding that “the need for the relief sought on appeal to be exact cannot be overemphasised.”
The court criticised Inducon’s attempt to seek a broad order simply stating that the counterclaim “be granted with costs,” without detailing its contents.
- Kenya's top court to rule on disputed presidential election
- More details emerge in Justice Gwaunza saga
- Opinion: Corruption a threat to viability of health systems
- Malunga farm case raises dust
Keep Reading
Such wording, the judgment said, was “meaningless, vague and inexact” and forced the court to improperly search through the record to determine what relief was being claimed.
Justice Chitakunye added: “The court cannot be expected to engage in such an exercise when the mandatory provisions of the rules state clearly that the relief sought must be exact.”
The bench rejected arguments by Inducon’s counsel that the defect could be cured through amendment or later correction, holding instead that the appeal was a nullity from the inception.
“In casu, the notice of appeal does not comply with rule 44(1)(e); such non-compliance renders the notice of appeal fatally defective,” the court ruled. “It is trite that a nullity cannot be amended.”
The court further ordered that each party bears its own costs, noting that the issue was not raised earlier despite the obvious defect in the appeal documents.
The ruling effectively upholds the High Court eviction order and reinforces strict compliance with appellate procedural rules in Zimbabwe’s highest court.
