The Bulawayo High Court has set aside a determination made by the Midlands Provincial Mining Director (PMD) in a dispute over mining claim boundaries, ruling that the official improperly delegated his powers to subordinates before deciding the matter.
The dispute involves Big Valley Masters (Private) Limited and Zanu-PF Shurugwi South legislator Wilson Mhuri, who was cited as the second respondent in his personal capacity as a miner.
Big Valley Masters, represented by Bruce Masamvu of Masamvu & Da Silva-Gustavo Law Chambers, approached the court seeking a judicial review of a July 17, 2025 determination by the PMD regarding a boundary dispute between the company’s Skyrocket 2 Mine and Mhuri’s neighbouring Surprise 459 claim.
The company told the court that Mhuri had encroached onto its mining location and that it lodged a complaint with the provincial mining office in June 2025. However, it later challenged the outcome of the inquiry, arguing that the determination had been made without a proper hearing and that relevant maps and coordinates had been disregarded.
In his ruling, Munamato Mutevedzi said the Provincial Mining Director had improperly delegated his authority to officers in his office, who conducted the proceedings before he issued the determination.
“The application be and is hereby granted. The decision of the first respondent dated July 17, 2025, in a mining dispute between the applicant and the second respondent be and is hereby set aside in its entirety,” Justice Mutevedzi ruled.
“The dispute be and is hereby remitted for a determination de novo, in full observance of the guidelines given in this judgment, before a different mining commissioner or such other officer as may be lawfully delegated by the Secretary of Mines.”
Court papers show that officials from the Provincial Mining Director’s office met the parties and conducted preliminary inquiries, but the director himself did not attend the meeting or a subsequent site visit.
Despite this, he later issued a determination confirming the position of Mhuri’s mining claim and directing Big Valley Masters to revert to the position of its claim as it existed at registration.
Justice Mutevedzi noted that under Zimbabwe’s Mines and Minerals Act, mining disputes are ordinarily determined by a Mining Commissioner, while Provincial Mining Directors may only preside over such matters through powers delegated by the Secretary of Mines.
Because those powers are themselves delegated, the court ruled that they cannot be passed on to other officials.
“It is impermissible for one to delegate powers that would have been delegated to him or her,” the judgment stated.
The court also dismissed several preliminary objections raised by Mr Mhuri, including arguments that the application had been abandoned due to defective service and that the dispute had become moot after Big Valley Masters sold the mining claim to another company.
Although the claim had been sold, the court ruled that the dispute still had practical implications because the coordinates of the claim had not yet been endorsed on the certificate of transfer due to the unresolved boundary issue.
Justice Mutevedzi concluded that the proceedings conducted by the mining office were fundamentally flawed.
“For the above reasons, I find that the so-called hearing was a nullity. The procedure adopted deviated so far from accepted methods of determining complaints, even in instances where the law allows the presiding officer greater flexibility in the conduct of proceedings,” he said.
Support CITE’s fearless, independent journalism. Your donation helps us amplify community voices, fight misinformation, and hold power to account. Help keep the truth alive. Donate today