Big Valley Masters (Private) Limited v The Provincial Mining Director, Midlands Province N.O and Wilson Mhuri

The applicant, Big Valley Masters (Pvt) Ltd, registered a mining claim called Skyrocket 2 Mine in 1999 and had been in lawful possession conducting mining activities. The second respondent, Wilson Mhuri, held interest in a neighboring mining block called Surprise 459. When their interests clashed, the applicant filed a complaint with the first respondent (Provincial Mining Director for Midlands Province) on 17 June 2025, alleging the second respondent had encroached onto its mining location. The PMD conducted an inquiry but did not personally preside over the hearing - instead delegating this to his officers. Despite not attending the hearing himself, the PMD made a determination on 17 July 2025 confirming the second respondent's mining claim position and directing the applicant to revert to Skyrocket 2 Mine's original registered position. The applicant subsequently sold the mining claim to Zhong Cheng (Pvt) Resources, though the transfer was incomplete due to missing coordinates affected by the ongoing dispute.

• Whether the application should be deemed abandoned for failure to attach a copy of the email to the return of service
• Whether the dispute had become moot due to the sale of the mining claim
• Whether there was material non-disclosure by the applicant
• Whether the applicant had locus standi given alleged confusion between Big Valley Masters (Pvt) Ltd and Big Valley Masters Holdings (Pvt) Ltd
• Whether the PMD validly delegated his powers to subordinate officers to conduct the hearing
• Whether the PMD could lawfully make a determination in a hearing he did not personally preside over
• Whether the procedure adopted constituted a gross procedural irregularity warranting review

The application was granted. The decision of the first respondent dated 17 July 2025 was set aside in its entirety. The dispute was remitted for determination de novo before a different mining commissioner or other officer lawfully delegated by the Secretary of Mines, with full observance of the guidelines given in the judgment. The second respondent was ordered to pay the applicant's costs of suit.

A Provincial Mining Director who exercises delegated judicial authority from the Secretary of Mines under the Mines and Minerals Act cannot lawfully sub-delegate that authority to subordinate officers to conduct hearings on his behalf. The principle of delegatus non potest delegare (a delegate cannot further delegate) applies. The designated presiding officer must personally hear and determine mining disputes as required by sections 345 and 346 of the Act - no one can be a judge in a case they did not hear. A determination made by an officer who did not personally preside over the hearing constitutes a gross procedural irregularity that renders the proceedings a nullity, even in summary hearings under section 348.

The court made several non-binding observations: (1) Courts retain discretion to condone procedural non-compliance where there is genuine oversight, no prejudice to the other party, and service was actually effected. (2) A return of service's primary function is to provide prima facie proof of delivery; where service was actually effected, incomplete documentation does not automatically render proceedings a nullity. (3) The errors in the PMD's determination (such as addressing it to the wrong company) likely stemmed from his lack of direct participation in the hearing, illustrating why the law requires personal involvement. (4) Mining disputes are recurring in Zimbabwe's courts, making authoritative guidance on procedural requirements particularly important. (5) The court noted it is proper to decide only those issues capable of disposing of all contestations between parties, rather than addressing every ground raised (citing Longman Zimbabwe v Midzi).

This case clarifies important principles in Zimbabwean mining law regarding delegation of judicial powers under the Mines and Minerals Act. It reinforces the Supreme Court's position in StoneZim Granite that Provincial Mining Directors exercise delegated powers and cannot sub-delegate those powers to subordinates. The judgment emphasizes that delegated judicial authority cannot be further delegated (delegatus non potest delegare), and that the officer designated to hear a dispute must personally preside over the hearing and make the determination. The case also provides guidance on when courts should exercise discretion to hear moot cases, particularly where matters are capable of repetition yet evading review, and where there remain practical effects on parties. It demonstrates the court's approach to procedural objections, emphasizing substance over form and the interests of justice in condonation applications.