Cephas Mabhundu and Others v Edson Godza

The applicants are members of the Juru Mining Syndicate. On 28 May 2021, a default order was issued by the High Court in favour of the respondent under HC 306/20. The applicants subsequently filed an application for rescission of that judgment under HC 144/21, which remained pending. On 8 October 2021, the respondent allegedly went to the first applicant's homestead, fenced his fields, and claimed entitlement to the land based on the default order. The respondent allegedly evicted the applicants from their traditional fields and homestead, and resumed mining activities which endangered the applicants' remaining homestead through rock blasting. The applicants sought suspension of the default order pending the finalisation of the rescission application. The respondent denied fencing the homestead or evicting the applicants, and maintained he was conducting legal mining operations.

• Whether the effects of the default order granted in HC 306/20 should be suspended pending the rescission application in HC 144/21
• Whether the respondent was entitled to evict the applicants based on the default order
• How to resolve disputes between miners and between miners and farmers regarding mining boundaries and rights
• What is the appropriate role of the Provincial Mining Director in assisting the court to resolve mining disputes

The court ordered that the Provincial Mining Director, Midlands, is to investigate the circumstances surrounding the mining dispute between the parties regarding their respective boundaries and thereafter file a comprehensive report with the Registrar of the court to guide the court in coming up with a decision, on or before 19 November 2021.

In mining disputes involving conflicting claims to mining rights and boundaries, particularly in miner versus miner or miner versus farmer cases, the court may order the Provincial Mining Director to conduct an investigation and file a comprehensive report to assist the court in making an informed determination. The Provincial Mining Director, being equipped with the necessary tools, resources, and technical expertise including access to mining certificate coordinates and ability to liaise with relevant institutions, is in the best position to provide the court with a practical assessment of the dispute that may lead to resolution or settlement between the parties.

The court observed that applications involving disputes of miner versus miner and miner versus farmer have become common. The court also commented that in some cases the input of the Provincial Mining Director is either unclear or non-committal, suggesting that greater involvement and clarity from that office would be beneficial. The court further noted that a thorough assessment by the Provincial Mining Director taking into account all relevant factors may well result in the parties coming to an agreement and resolving the issues without further court intervention. The court also made reference to the case of Tawanda Muchenurwa v Double M. Prospects and 2 Others HB 147/21, suggesting a developing line of authority on this approach to mining disputes.

This case is significant in Zimbabwean mining law jurisprudence as it establishes a practical procedural approach to resolving complex mining disputes involving boundary conflicts. The judgment recognizes the importance of involving the Provincial Mining Director as a technical expert to assist the court in making informed decisions in mining disputes. It reflects the court's acknowledgment that miner versus miner and miner versus farmer disputes have become common and require specialized technical input for proper resolution. The case demonstrates judicial innovation in seeking practical solutions rather than simply applying existing orders without full understanding of the factual circumstances on the ground.