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.
Post
published
in:
Business
