adminDaniel Nemukuyu Senior Reporter
A Chinese gold mining company that was recently ordered to pay US$893 000 to a local business partner for breach of contract, yesterday obtained an interim High Court order stopping the attachment and sale of the company’s property.Ming Chang Sino-Africa Mining Investments Private Limited had several of its properties attached by the deputy sheriff of Harare to satisfy a default judgment granted in favour of Mr Livingstone Mutatazha, a Mutawatawa businessman.
The company allegedly entered into a mining a partnership with Mr Mutatazha who owns 10 blocks of reef gold claims in Mutawatawa, Mashonaland East.
It was agreed that the company would bring mining equipment and working capital while Mr Mutatazha was expected to provide the claims.
The parties, according to the agreement, would equally share the proceeds.
A dispute arose over sharing of the proceeds resulting in the company abandoning the mine without addressing the issues.
Mr Mutatazha, who felt cheated, issued summons at the High Court and a default judgment of US$893 320 was granted as damages for breach of contract.
Acting on the default judgment, Mr Mutatazha sought the services of the deputy sheriff to attach and auction some properties belonging to the company.
The mining company engaged the services Advocate Thabani Mpofu and Mr Advent Tavenhave who filed an urgent chamber application and successfully argued the matter in court yesterday.
The High Court stayed execution in the matter pending determination of the rescission application by the company. The writ of execution that had been issued was also set aside, which means the company will for now, have access to its attached property.
According to the summons issued, the company approached Mr Mutatazha in October 2010 and the parties agreed to enter into a partnership.
When the joint venture mining operations started they realised 102 grams of gold that was selling at US$40 per gram.
Mr Mutatazha claimed he was not given his share of US$2 040.
Between December 2010 and July 2011 at least 688 tonnes of ore was extracted and at least 2 064 grams of gold were produced.
Mr Mutatazha argued that the company took advantage of his absence and continued extracting and removing more ore without his knowledge.
He argued that the company failed to remit his portion from the extraction carried out between December 2010 and March 2011.
Mr Mutatazha also claimed that in June 2011, the company clandestinely removed the extracted ore from the mine despite his earlier objection to the removal pending determination of a case he had reported to the police.
He argued that the company damaged his claims extensively and that the subsequent abandonment of the mine by the company called for compensation to the tune of US$893 320.
Ming Chang Sino-Africa counter-argued that it bought the mine from Mr Mutatazha and that it never entered any partnership with him.
The agreement sale, according to the company, was verbally conducted and that nothing was reduced into writing.
Online Reporter