THE Bulawayo High Court has nullified the mining claim boundary determination made by the Midlands provincial mining director in a dispute between Big Valley Masters Private Limited and a shareholder in the Skyrocket 2 Mine.
This followed an application by Big Valley Masters Private Limited, through its lawyer Bruce Masamvu, filed at the High Court seeking a review of the proceedings and a determination made by the provincial mining director in the boundary dispute.
The mining company cited the provincial mining director (PMD) for Midlands and Wilson Mhuri as respondents.
Mhuri is cited as an individual with an interest in another mining block called Surprise 459, which shares a boundary with Skyrocket 2 Mine.
On February 18, Bulawayo High Court judge Justice Munamato Mutevedzi ruled in favour of Big Valley Masters Private Limited.
“The application be and is hereby granted. The decision of the first respondent (mining director) dated July 17, 2025, in a mining dispute between the applicant and the second respondent be and is hereby set aside in its entirety,” Mutevedzi ruled.
“The dispute be and is hereby remitted for a determination de novo, in full observance of the guidelines given in this judgment, before a different mining commissioner or such other officer as may be lawfully delegated by the secretary of Mines.
“The second respondent shall pay the applicant’s costs of suit.”
- SA name strong A side for Zim tour
- Cover-up feared in slain CCC activist’s case
- Cover-up feared in slain CCC activist’s case
- Storm clouds over Byo council
Keep Reading
Mutevedzi noted that under the Mines and Minerals Act [Chapter 21:05], the official who wields judicial authority to determine mining disputes is the mining commissioner.
He noted that a provincial mining director is not a mining commissioner and when he or she presides over mining disputes, it is by virtue of powers delegated by the secretary of Mines.
Court papers state that in 1999, the applicant registered a mining claim described as Skyrocket 2 Mine, registration number 16955.
Since then, it has not only been in possession of the mining location, but has also been lawfully conducting mining activities there.
The court papers state that when the interests of Big Valley Masters Private Limited and Mhuri clashed at the mining block in dispute, the applicant directed a complaint to the provincial mining director on June 17, 2025.
Indications are that Big Valley Masters Private Limited was aggrieved by the decision of the first respondent and approached the court with an application for the review of the provincial mining director’s determination.
Big Valley Masters Private Limited noted that it attempted to engage Mhuri, but the overtures were unsuccessful, which led to the filing of the complaint with the provincial mining director.
Indications were that even worse was that the provincial mining director’s assignee did not conduct any physical examination on the ground.
The court papers state that in spite of all the documented indiscretions, the applicant said it was astounded when it later received a determination in respect of the dispute from the first respondent, which prompted it to raise the current challenge.
In his opposing affidavit, the provincial mining director conceded that he had delegated his officers to preside over the hearing.
Mhuri also raised a number of preliminary objections, saying the application had, by operation of 15(22) of the High Court Rules, 2021 (the Rules), been deemed abandoned for want of proper service on the first respondent.
It was noted that the provincial mining director grossly erred when he sub-delegated his powers to officers working under him, which counsel for the first respondent did not dispute.
“For the above reasons, I find that the so-called hearing was a nullity. The procedure adopted deviated so far from accepted methods of determining complaints even in instances where the law allows the presiding officer greater flexibility in the conduct of the proceedings,” Mutevedzi ruled.
“The irregularity complained of negatively impacts the very root of a fair hearing. I cannot, therefore, allow the decision to stand.
“I remain alive to the other grounds raised by the applicant in his quest to have the determination overturned.”
