Fidelis Munyoro
Chief Court Reporter
The High Court has ordered the restoration of five gold claims in Goromonzi to Laryscope Investments (Private) Limited after ruling that the company had been unlawfully dispossessed of the mining area.
Justice Nevile Wamambo ordered Tafrenyika Chitimbe, Zi Shi Stone Zimbabwe (Private) Limited and all persons claiming occupation through them to vacate the claims registered under certificate ME1890G.
The court further ordered the Sheriff of Zimbabwe to evict the respondents if they failed to comply with the order.
The dispute arose after Laryscope alleged that four men arrived at its Cromlet gold claims on Kilmur B Farm, Arcturus, on April 1, 2026.
According to the company, one of the men was armed with a 303 rifle while another was operating an excavator.
The company’s security guard, Themba Alfai, said the men told him they had been sent by Mr Chitimbe and ordered him off the mining claims.
He said he was threatened with the rifle before leaving the site and reporting the matter to the police.
Mr Chitimbe denied sending anyone to the claims.
He told the court that he was in Harare on the day in question and produced an affidavit from Chief Hwata supporting his alibi.
The respondents also argued that the dispute was essentially a boundary dispute between competing mining claims and should be determined by the Provincial Mining Director under the Mines and Minerals Act.
Justice Wamambo rejected the argument, saying the urgent application was concerned with possession rather than ownership or competing mining rights.
“A spoliation application does not ask the court to decide where the beacons stand,” he said.
“It asks who was in possession and whether that possession was taken without due process.”
The judge said if the respondents believed that their mining claims overlapped with those of Laryscope, they should have approached the appropriate mining authorities or sought an interdict instead of taking possession of the disputed area.
“It was not to move onto the ground,” he said.
The court found that Laryscope’s peaceful possession of the claims was not seriously disputed.
Justice Wamambo said the respondents had failed to raise a genuine dispute of fact over whether they, or people acting on their behalf had dispossessed the applicant.
He noted that Mr Chitimbe’s alibi did not explain who, if not the respondents had allegedly sent the men to the mining claims.
The judge also questioned the respondents’ claim that there was no overlap between their claims and those held by Laryscope.
He said the respondents had relied on different reference points from those used in Laryscope’s mining certificate when calculating the distances between the claims.
The court further noted that the respondents’ own papers placed their mining rights on land formerly farmed by Emmanuel Ranga, where Laryscope’s claims were situated.
Justice Wamambo found the respondents’ position to be contradictory.
“One cannot say in the same breath that one has never been near the applicant’s claims and has no dispute with the applicant and that the matter is really a boundary and co-ordinate dispute between the parties which must go to the Provincial Mining Director,” he said.
The judge also accepted the evidence of the security guard concerning statements allegedly made by the men at the mine.
He said the statements were made at the scene, reported to the police on the same day and were consistent with the respondents’ own claim that there was a dispute concerning the location of the respective mining claims.
The court rejected the respondents’ reliance on the alleged police investigation.
Justice Wamambo noted that neither side had produced a police report and said that, in any event, a police decision not to prosecute would not determine the civil issue of possession.
