THE High Court sitting in Bulawayo has ruled in favour of Impala Enterprises (Pvt) Ltd after it filed an urgent application for a spoliation order and final interdict against the invasion of Kings Riches Mine in Matopos.
Impala, trading as FILBEG Investment, cited Tracy Monzeyiwa, Mthokozisi Moyo, Muzikayiso Ndlovu, Harrea Khumalo, Mbonisi Tshuma, Thabani Tshuma, Khulekani Nyathi, Santokozo Ncube and the ZRP officer commanding Matabeleland South province as respondents.
The matter was heard by High Court judge Justice Ngoni Nduna who on February 2 ruled that the applicant's application succeeded with costs on a higher scale.
“First to eighth respondents be and are hereby ordered to forthwith restore to the applicant, undisturbed possession of mining claim registered number 35104 known as Kings Riches 3 together with all the applicant's plant, equipment and vehicles, failing which the deputy sheriff with the assistance of the lawful force of the ninth respondent, be and is hereby ordered to evict the first to eighth respondents,” Nduna ruled.
“Their associates, assignees and all those claiming rights after them, from the said mining claim and to further dispossess the said first to eighth respondents, of all the plant, equipment and vehicles of the applicant thereat and to deliver the same to applicant.”
Nduna ruled that the respondents, their associates and or agents, nominees and all those claiming rights after them were interdicted from setting foot within 100 metres of the boundary of Kings Riches 3 mining location.
He said failure to abide by the order would lead to arrest for contempt of court by the ZRP officer commanding Matabeleland South province.
Impala Enterprises represented by T Matsiye Moyo in its application had submitted that it was in peaceful and undisturbed possession or occupation of the mine.
“On 26 January 2026, the first respondent accompanied by the rest of the respondents entered the mine claim and with threats of violence managed to take over the said mine,” the applicant submitted.
Indications were that it was clear the entrance by the respondent to the mine was not being disputed and the applicant’s possession of the mine was overcome by the 27 January 2026.
The applicant further alleges that its possession of the said mine was, therefore, unlawfully brought to an end.
The court papers state that it must be noted that of the 10 respondents only the first respondent issued an answer to the claim.
“He did so by raising points in limine. He stated that the applicant has no locus standi in the matter. He further argued that he has attached a defective resolution in the matter. He further alleges that the applicant failed to join the judicial manager in the case,” the court documents read.
“What has to be borne in mind is the fact that the applicant is saying he was in possession of the mine which he has been illegally disposed of. And as stated above, there is need for the respondent to pursue his matters legally rather to take the law into his own hands and despoiled the applicant.”
Justice Nduna noted that the spoliation proceedings are aimed at restoration of applicant’s possession of the very property which he held before the conduct of the respondent.
The requirements to be proven by an applicant relying on the mandament van spolie are well-known.
He noted that the remedy afforded by the mandament van spolie, expressed in the maxim spoliatus ante omnia restituendus est, is generally granted where one party to a dispute concerning possession of property seizes the property pursuant to what he believes to be his own entitlement thereto.
He said the only valid defences that might be raised were that the applicant was not in peaceful and undisturbed possession of the thing in question at the time of the dispossession, the dispossession was not unlawful and, therefore, did not constitute spoliation, restoration of possession is impossible and the respondent acted within the limits of counter-spoliation in regaining possession of the article.
“A perusal of the record does not find any of the above being pleaded by the respondent. The law relating to the basis on which a mandament van spolie will be granted is well settled,” Nduna noted.
“It suffices to state that the case deserving of the relief being applied for has been made out and an order must follow to that effect.”
