Zimbabwe: Zimasco U.S.$269k Chrome Dispute to Proceed to Trial, High Court Dismisses Jurisdiction Challenge

The High Court has dismissed a preliminary objection by Fidelis Mudzengi seeking to block a multi-thousand-dollar chrome dispute brought by Zimasco (Pvt) Ltd, ruling that it has jurisdiction to hear the case and ordering that the matter proceed to trial.

In a judgment delivered in Bulawayo, Justice Evangelista Kabasa rejected the Mudzengi’s argument that the dispute should be handled by the Administrative Court under the Mines and Minerals Act, finding that the claim before the court is rooted in alleged unlawful extraction of chrome ore rather than statutory compensation.

“The court… is left in no doubt as to what the nature of the claim is and its genesis,” ruled Kabasa, adding that the dispute “revolves on whether the he unlawfully took the plaintiff’s dump and if so, the quantity thereof and the resultant financial prejudice.”

Zimasco is suing Mudzengi for US$269,474, claiming he illegally mined 27,349 tonnes of chrome ore from its Rhodesdale 3 claim in Lalapanzi between May and June 2021.

The company argues the extracted material would have produced 2,755 tonnes of chrome concentrate for export.

Mudzengi insists he operated within his own Reef 2 claim and only extracted ore from a dump he believed was outside Zimasco’s boundaries, allegedly with guidance from the company’s representative.

His legal team argued the claim amounted to compensation under Section 133 of the Mines and Minerals Act, which falls under the Administrative Court’s jurisdiction. “The High Court ought not to usurp the jurisdiction of the Administrative Court,” the defence submitted.

But Justice Kabasa dismissed that position, stating: “There is nothing in the pleadings which speaks to mining operations carried on any underground extension block,” a key requirement under the cited provision.

The judge said while the High Court respects statutory limits, it retains broad authority. “The High Court has jurisdiction to hear all matters except where limitations are imposed by law,” he said.

The judge concluded that the defendant’s preliminary point “has no merit” and ordered it dismissed with costs. He declined, however, to grant punitive costs against Mudzengi, noting such penalties “are not granted lightly” and require clear evidence of misconduct.

The case will now proceed to full trial, where the court will determine whether the chrome was unlawfully extracted and, if so, the damages due.

By New Zimbabwe.