High Court Rejects Mine Reclamation Bid Despite US...

High Court Rejects Mine Reclamation Bid Despite US$100K Investment

Nyashadzashe Ndoro

Chief Reporter

The High Court of Zimbabwe has dismissed an urgent application by three minority shareholders seeking to reclaim control of a Bindura mine, despite their claim of having invested over US$100 000 in the operation since August 2024.

A mining dispute between Joel Mtetwa, Patrick Mateu, and Edmore Kauteko (the applicants) and Timesite Mining (Pvt) Ltd and Time of Hope Mining Syndicate (the respondents) led to a High Court case. The applicants' urgent application to regain possession of a portion of Kimberly F Mine was dismissed due to a defective certificate of urgency.

The applicants, who claim to be minority shareholders in Time of Hope Mining Syndicate through a joint venture, alleged they were forcibly removed from the mine site in Bindura by Timesite Mining with the assistance of the police in late December 2024.

They sought an order restoring their possession of the mine and its shafts, asserting that they had invested over US$100,000 in the operation since August 2024.

They further alleged that Timesite Mining had erected a boundary fence, restricting their access. Timesite Mining and Time of Hope Mining Syndicate opposed the application, raising several preliminary objections, including a lack of urgency and locus standi (legal standing) on the part of the applicants.

They also cited a letter from the Ministry of Mines and Mining Development, dated June 2024, which addressed a dispute between the two respondent companies but made no mention of the applicants.

Justice Neville Wamambo of the High Court focused on the respondents' challenge regarding the urgency of the matter.

The judge highlighted a critical flaw in the applicants' documentation: the certificate of urgency, which is meant to attest to the urgent nature of the case, was signed on December 29, 2024, while the founding affidavit—containing the factual basis of the application—was signed on December 30, 2024.

Citing the precedent set in Condurago Investments (Private) Limited t/a Mbada Diamonds v Mutual Finance (Private) Limited, Justice Wamambo emphasized that a valid certificate of urgency must be based on a valid founding affidavit.

Since the certificate predated the affidavit, the judge reasoned that the lawyer signing the certificate could not have properly considered the facts of a non-existent affidavit. This discrepancy, the judge concluded, rendered the urgent chamber application "fatally defective" due to the absence of an essential element.

Consequently, the application was dismissed with costs, leaving the applicants without immediate recourse to regain control of the mine. The ruling effectively halts, for now, their efforts to resume mining operations at the disputed site.

"By parity of reasoning, resonating with that in the Condurago Investments t/a Mbada Investments v Mutual Finance (Pvt) Ltd case (supra), I find that the urgent chamber application is fatally defective for lack of an essential element of such an application. With this finding, I will not delve into the rest of the points in limine.

"It is ordered as follows: The application be and is hereby dismissed with costs," the judge ruled.

Meanwhile, the underlying dispute regarding the parties' respective rights and interests in the mine remains unresolved and will likely be addressed through other legal avenues.