Fidelis Munyoro
Chief Court Reporter
Businessman Prosper Shumba and his associates have been barred from mining at a disputed Mazowe site after the High Court ruled that their mining claims did not authorise operations within a special grant held by Minerals Identity (Private) Limited.
In a recent judgment, Justice Joel Mambara interdicted Shumba, Innocent Mtukwa, Johane Tom and people acting through them from conducting mining, excavation, construction and related activities within the Inyatsi mining area, covered by Special Grant 10332.
The court also prohibited the removal of gold ore already extracted, as well as mining machinery and equipment, pending determination of eviction proceedings under case number HCH 5896/25.
The dispute centred on Angee 62, a block of 10 gold reef claims registered under certificate number 39309. The respondents maintained that Mtukwa had registered the claims before selling them to Gold Yields Mining Company (Private) Limited.
However, Justice Mambara found that the registration documents placed Angee 62 at Brecon Farm, rather than at Inyatsi, where Minerals Identity alleged that unauthorised mining was taking place.
“The question is not whether Angee 62 exists. The question is where Angee 62 is located,” the judge said.
He noted that the respondents had produced no amended certificate or lawful authority showing that the claims had been relocated to the disputed site.
“A mining certificate identifies a defined mining location. It is not a portable instrument to be carried from one gold-bearing area to another,” Justice Mambara ruled.
The judge rejected the argument that the sale agreement between Mtukwa and Gold Yields entitled the company to mine within Minerals Identity’s special grant.
“The decisive issue is documentary. It is whether the respondents have placed before the court a mining title authorising mining within SG 10332 at Inyatsi. They have not,” he said.
Shumba had sought to distance himself from the operations, arguing that he did not personally hold the mining rights and that Gold Yields and foreign investors were conducting the activities.
However, the court noted that Shumba had represented Gold Yields in the sale transaction and that no mining title authorising operations within SG 10332 had been produced.
Justice Mambara also criticised the Ministry of Mines and Mining Development over its failure to issue certificates covered by an earlier court order.
The January 2026 order, granted by Justice Chitapi, directed the responsible authorities to issue registration certificates for several special grants, including SG 10332.
“A court order must be obeyed unless and until it is discharged,” Justice Mambara said, rejecting reliance on a draft rescission application as justification for non-compliance.
The court authorised the Sheriff and duly attested members of the Zimbabwe Republic Police to enforce the interdict. Shumba, Mtukwa and Tom were ordered to pay costs on the legal practitioner-and-client scale.
The ruling comes amid a separate case in which Shumba and Gold Yields were ordered to pay Fiore International Trading (Private) Limited US$2 758 550.
Justice Helena Charewa granted default judgment on September 9, 2026, awarding Fiore US$208 550 and a further US$2.55 million representing the claimed value of motor vehicles, together with interest and legal costs.
Fiore alleged that transactions between 2023 and 2026 involved representations by Shumba that he owned mining claims in the Mupfurudzi Game Reserve area and elsewhere in Mashonaland Central.
The company claimed it paid US$208 550 and released vehicles valued at US$2.55 million after entering into mining and vehicle agreements. It alleged that the mining claims presented to it did not exist or were not registered in Shumba’s name.
The judgment was granted by default, meaning the allegations were not tested through a defended trial.
The two cases concern separate disputes, but both involve Shumba and Gold Yields in mining-related transactions.
The Minerals Identity case determined that the Angee 62 certificate did not authorise mining within SG 10332, while the Fiore case resulted in a substantial monetary award arising from alleged losses involving cash and vehicles.
