A Bulawayo High Court judge has cleared the way for a high-stakes civil trial after dismissing an attempt to block a US$269 000 chrome ore dispute involving mining giant Zimasco from proceeding.
The case pits Zimasco (Pvt) LTD against Fidelis Mudzengi over allegations of illegal chrome extraction at a Lalapanzi mining site, a dispute that is now heading to full trial after a crucial jurisdictional ruling.
Zimasco claims Mudzengi unlawfully extracted 27 349 tonnes of raw chrome ore fines from its Rhodesdale 3 mining claim between May and June 2021.
According to court papers, the ore would have produced 2 735 tonnes of chrome concentrate with an export value of US$269 474.
The company is demanding the full amount plus interest and legal costs.
But before trial, Mudzengi raised a preliminary objection, arguing the matter belonged before the Administrative Court because it involved mining compensation issues governed by the Mines and Minerals Act.
His lawyers warned against burdening the High Court with disputes allegedly reserved for specialist tribunals.
Bulawayo High Court judge Justice Evangelista Kabasa was not convinced.
- Fresh land invasions hit Whitecliff
- Pomona cash row escalates
- Border Timbers targets European markets
- SA name strong A side for Zim tour
Keep Reading
She ruled that the case was not about compensation from underground mining operations, but rather about the alleged unlawful removal of ore from a dump owned by Zimasco.
“There is nothing in the pleadings which speaks to mining operations carried on any underground extension block,” Kabasa ruled.
“The pleadings are therefore clear as to what the parties are wrangling over.”
The judge said the core issue was whether Mudzengi unlawfully extracted chrome ore fines belonging to Zimasco and, if so, the extent of financial prejudice.
Mudzengi denies wrongdoing, arguing the ore dump extended beyond Zimasco’s boundaries into an independent mining location.
He claims he engaged a Zimasco representative who confirmed the boundaries before extraction, and that he paid US$2 300 for approximately 2 300 tonnes realised from the operation.
Kabasa said those arguments go to the merits of the dispute and must be resolved at trial.
“Whether the plaintiff can prove that the dump was its property and that the defendant unlawfully deprived it of the tonnage claimed is an issue for trial,” she ruled.
While the judge acknowledged that disputes falling under Section 133 of the Mines and Minerals Act belong exclusively to the Administrative Court, she found this matter did not fit that category.
Zimasco is represented by Danziger and Partners, while Mudzengi is represented by Farai and Associates Law Chambers.
