High Court nullifies PMD decision in mine dispute

The court will only deal with a constitutional issue where the remedy sought by the applicant is solely dependent upon the determination of that constitutional issue

THE High Court of Zimbabwe in Bulawayo has set aside a determination by the Provincial Mining Director (PMD) for Midlands Province in a boundary dispute involving Big Valley Masters (Pvt) Ltd and Mr Wilson Mhuri, ruling that the proceedings were a nullity due to gross procedural irregularities.

In a judgment delivered on February 18, 2025, High Court Judge, Justice Munamato Mutevedzi, found that the PMD unlawfully sub-delegated his powers and subsequently made a determination in a matter he had not personally presided over.

The dispute centres on Skyrocket 2 Mine, registered in 1999 and held by Big Valley Masters (Pvt) Ltd, and a neighbouring claim known as Surprise 459, in which Mr Mhuri has an interest.

Following allegations of encroachment, Big Valley Masters lodged a complaint with the PMD in June 2025.
On July 17, 2025, the PMD issued a determination confirming the ground position of Surprise 459 and directing Big Valley Masters to revert to its original pegged position, effectively faulting the company for the boundary conflict.

Aggrieved by the ruling, Big Valley Masters approached the High Court seeking a review in terms of the High Court Act.

According to documents, the company argued that the determination was made without a proper hearing, alleging that the PMD neither attended the proceedings nor conducted a physical inspection, and that critical documentation and co-ordinates were disregarded.

In his opposing affidavit, the PMD conceded that he had delegated his officers to preside over the hearing but maintained that due process had been followed.

Mr Mhuri raised preliminary objections, arguing, among other issues, that the matter had become moot after the mining claim was sold to a third party and that the application had been improperly served.

Justice Mutevedzi dismissed the preliminary objections, including arguments that the matter had been abandoned and that the dispute had become academic following the sale of the claim.

The court held that the issue remained of practical significance, particularly as the transfer documentation lacked endorsed coordinates pending resolution of the dispute.

On the merits, the court found that, in terms of the Mines and Minerals Act, mining disputes may only be determined by the High Court or a mining commissioner where parties consent in writing. While a Provincial Mining Director may act through delegated authority from the Secretary of Mines, such powers are borrowed and cannot be sub-delegated.

In arriving at his decision, Justice Mutevedzi relied on the Supreme Court ruling in StoneZim Granite (Private) Limited versus The Provincial Mining Director Mashonaland East, which reaffirmed that delegated powers under the Act cannot be further delegated without lawful authority.

“The PMD’s power to preside over disputes is delegated power. It is borrowed,” the judge said, adding that once the

PMD chose not to personally preside over the hearing, he could not lawfully issue a determination.
The court emphasised that even under summary procedures provided for in the Act, the designated official must personally hear and determine the matter. Making a ruling without having conducted or attended the hearing was described as a fundamental irregularity that struck at the root of a fair hearing.

Justice Mutevedzi declared the proceedings a nullity and set aside the July 17, 2025, decision in its entirety.
The dispute was remitted for a hearing de novo before a different mining commissioner or another lawfully delegated officer.