Online Reporter
Fidelis Munyoro
Chief Court Reporter
IN a matter steeped in statutory interpretation and competing claims to mineral rights, the Government has moved to clarify the legal standing of a dispute between Freda Rebecca Gold Mine and Side Electricals Private Limited, affirming that the two entities hold distinct and non-overlapping mining titles.
The clarification comes as the controversy now squarely rests before the High Court, where an application for declaratory relief over Mining Lease 21 is pending determination.
In sworn papers placed before the court, the Provincial Mining Director for Mashonaland Central, Tendai Kashiri, adopts a position of studied neutrality on the substantive relief sought by Freda Rebecca Gold Mine, while asserting the Ministry’s statutory obligation to place the correct legal and administrative record before the bench.
“The 2nd, 3rd, and 4th respondents are not opposed to the application filed by the applicant. However, as the statutory custodians of the administration of mining rights… we hereby submit the correct position of the mining rights in question to assist this Honourable Court,” Mr Kashiri said.
The proceedings pit Freda Rebecca Gold Mine against Side Electricals Private Limited, trading as Botha Mine, cited as the first respondent.
At the centre of the dispute lies an allegation of unlawful incursion, with Freda Rebecca Gold Mine asserting that Side Electricals has been conducting mining operations within the confines of Mining Lease 21 absent lawful authority.
Before the Harare High Court, Freda Rebecca Gold Mine, a Mutapa gold resource contends that Side Electricals’ claims, styled as Botha 1 to 4, impermissibly encroach upon its registered mining lease and ought, in law, to be declared null and void.
Freda further seeks injunctive relief to halt the impugned activities and compel the respondent’s withdrawal from the contested terrain.
Kashiri, in delineating the legal position, confirmed that Side Electricals is the holder of four certificates of registration corresponding to the Botha 1 to 4 blocks, collectively measuring 31 hectares.
“The first respondent holds four certificates of registration… These blocks are contiguous and cover a total area of 31 hectares,” he said.
He juxtaposed this with Freda Rebecca Gold Mine’s title, confirming that the applicant holds Mining Lease 21, a substantially larger tract measuring 1,586 hectares, and that such lease remains extant and unimpaired in law.
“The Mining Lease is current and in good standing… The lease remains legally valid in its full original extent,” Kashiri said.
Addressing a historical administrative process initiated in 2002, which purported to reduce the size of the lease, Kashiri was unequivocal in stating that such a process never crystallised into a legally binding outcome.
“Crucially, there is no record of the Mining Affairs Board ever proceeding to authorise the decrease of Mining Lease 21,” he said.
He further apprised the court that the Ministry has consistently processed inspection certificates on the basis of the lease’s full extent, reinforcing its continuing legal validity.
Of central importance to the dispute, Kashiri categorically disavowed any suggestion that Side Electricals holds rights within the boundaries of Mining Lease 21.
“We confirm that the first respondent has never acquired mining rights within the boundaries of Mining Lease 21… The only certificates granting mining rights to the 1st respondent are the four Botha certificates,” he said.
He emphasised the juridical separateness of the respective titles held by the parties.
“The applicant and the first respondent hold valid titles that apply to two distinct and separate registered mining locations,” Kashiri said.
In a pointed caution, he warned that any mining activity conducted by the respondent within the lease would constitute a violation of the governing legal framework.
“Any mining activity conducted by the first respondent within the applicant’s Mining Lease 21 would constitute mining outside their registered boundaries,” he said.
Freda Rebecca, in its application, seeks a declaratory order affirming its status as the lawful holder of Mining Lease 21, coupled with a finding that any mining operations undertaken by Side Electricals within that lease are unlawful and liable to cessation.
The relief sought extends to the removal of what the applicant characterises as encroachment, the rectification of claim boundaries and a prohibitory order restraining the respondent, its agents, or any parties claiming through it from undertaking mining operations or extracting minerals within the disputed area.
Further, the applicant seeks an order compelling the respondent to vacate the mining area, together with all equipment, within seven days, with provision for enforcement by the Sheriff and the Zimbabwe Republic Police should the need arise.
The application also places in issue the procedural regularity of the Botha claims, alleging that their registration was effected in the absence of a requisite Environmental Impact Assessment Certificate from the Environmental Management Agency.
In the founding affidavit, Mr Takunda Timbe, on behalf of Freda Rebecca Gold Mine Limited, underscores the gravity of the alleged infringement.
“The mining activities being conducted by the first respondent, and all persons claiming occupation through it, within the applicant’s Mining Lease are illegal, null and void. They must be ordered to vacate the Mining Lease. Gold is a finite resource, and accordingly, this Honourable Court is urged to exercise its discretion in favour of the applicant.”
Freda further prays for costs on a legal practitioner and client scale, citing what it characterises as the respondent’s willful non-compliance with mining laws and continued operations within the contested area.
The matter now lies before the civil division of the High Court, with the Provincial Mining Director, the Secretary for Mines and Mining Development, the Minister of Mines and Mining Development, and the Environmental Management Agency cited in their official capacities.
As yet, no date has been set down for the hearing, leaving the dispute poised at the threshold of judicial determination.
