Chimurenga Mining Syndicate and Nathan Tendai Manyuchi and Dauglas Mahiya v Nomatter Nyarugwe and Others

The first respondent obtained a spoliation order on 30 January 2026 (case HCMTC26/26) requiring the applicants to restore peaceful and undisturbed possession of Ruenya Fortune 25 mine. The applicants contested this, claiming they were not at Ruenya Fortune 25 but at their own mine, Chimurenga Mining Syndicate under Special Grant SG 10423, and that there was a boundary dispute pending resolution. The applicants appealed to the Supreme Court (SC97/26), but the first respondent was granted leave to execute pending appeal. On 10 February 2026, a Writ of Ejectment was issued by the Registrar and served on the applicants on 11 February 2026. The applicants then filed this urgent application on 19 February 2026, seeking to stay execution of the writ and have it declared a nullity, maintaining they were not at the first respondent's mine and that the spoliation order did not authorize eviction.

• Whether the application was urgent
• Whether the applicants came to court with 'dirty hands' by not complying with the court order
• Whether the applicants had locus standi to seek a declaratur
• Whether the interim relief sought was defective
• Whether a Writ of Ejectment issued by the Registrar was incompetent and could be set aside
• Whether a spoliation order can be enforced by way of a Writ of Ejectment
• Whether the court could revisit its earlier finding regarding the location of the applicants' mining operations
• Whether the Writ of Ejectment was irregular or a nullity because the spoliation order did not specifically mention eviction

The application was dismissed with costs. All points in limine raised by the first respondent were also dismissed for lack of merit.

A spoliation order requiring restoration of peaceful and undisturbed possession can be enforced by way of a Writ of Ejectment under Rule 69(1) of the High Court Rules, 2021, as the ejectment achieves the result contemplated by the court order (i.e., vacating premises to allow the successful party to occupy). A court is functus officio regarding factual determinations made in an earlier order, and parties cannot ask the same court to revisit or reverse such findings—only a higher court on appeal or review can do so. The fact that a spoliation order does not specifically use the word 'eviction' or 'ejectment' does not render a Writ of Ejectment irregular or a nullity if the writ seeks to achieve the result required by the court order. Orders ad factum praestandum may be enforced through contempt proceedings, but Writs of Ejectment are an additional or alternative enforcement mechanism available to the court.

The court observed that the applicants' conduct in asking the court to accept they were at their own mine after the court had already found they despoiled the first respondent 'borders on contempt of this court'. The court also noted logically that if the applicants were truly at their own mine and not at the first respondent's mine, they would not need any relief from the court as no one would evict them from their own mine. While the court declined to award costs on a legal practitioner and client scale as requested by the first respondent, noting that the first respondent had also raised points in limine that lacked merit.

This case establishes important principles in Zimbabwean mining and civil procedure law regarding: (1) the enforcement of spoliation orders through writs of ejectment; (2) the doctrine of functus officio preventing a court from revisiting its own factual findings; (3) the availability of multiple enforcement mechanisms for orders ad factum praestandum (both contempt proceedings and writs of execution); and (4) the interpretation of Rule 69(1) of the High Court Rules, 2021 concerning writs of execution for ejectment. The case clarifies that parties cannot relitigate issues already determined by seeking to stay execution on grounds that challenge the original court's findings.