Zimasco (Pvt) Ltd v Fidelis Mudzengi

Zimasco (Pvt) Ltd, the holder of a mining claim known as Rhodesdale 3 (Registration No. 313 BM) situate in Lalapanzi, alleged that between May-June 2021, the defendant Fidelis Mudzengi illegally and unlawfully extracted 27,349 tonnes of raw chrome fines from the plaintiff's mine dump. The plaintiff claimed this would have yielded 2,735 tonnes of chrome ore concentrate with an export value of US$269,474. The defendant operated a mining claim called Reef 2 which shared a boundary with the plaintiff's claim. The defendant contended he extracted fines from a dump occupying both the plaintiff's mining site and an independent mining site, after engaging with plaintiff's representative who confirmed boundaries, and that extraction occurred outside plaintiff's boundaries. The defendant openly extracted 2,300 tonnes and paid US$2,300. On the day of trial, defendant's counsel raised a preliminary point that the High Court lacked jurisdiction, arguing the matter should be determined by the Administrative Court under section 133 of the Mines and Minerals Act.

• Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to hear a claim for damages arising from alleged unlawful extraction of chrome ore from a mining dump
• Whether the plaintiff's claim falls within section 133 of the Mines and Minerals Act [Chapter 21:05] requiring determination by the Administrative Court
• Whether the claim relates to compensation for mining operations on an underground extension block affecting reserved ground
• The proper interpretation of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court in relation to specific statutory jurisdiction conferred on specialized courts

The preliminary point on jurisdiction was dismissed with costs. The Registrar was directed to set down the matter for trial.

Where a claim in a mining dispute is based on common law unlawful expropriation of property and does not involve compensation claims by owners or occupiers of reserved ground affected by mining operations on underground extension blocks under section 133 of the Mines and Minerals Act, the High Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. The court must determine jurisdiction by examining the pleadings and the actual nature of the claim as framed by the parties, not merely the general context in which the dispute arises. The High Court's inherent jurisdiction extends to all matters except where statute specifically limits such jurisdiction. Where specialized courts are given jurisdiction over specific statutory causes of action, that specialized jurisdiction prevails, but only where the claim actually falls within the statutory provision creating that specialized jurisdiction.

Kabasa J observed that had the matter been one located in section 133 involving an owner or occupier of reserved ground injuriously affected by mining operations on an underground extension block, the court would not have hesitated to direct the parties to the Administrative Court. The judge endorsed the reasoning from DHL International (Pvt) Ltd v Madzikanda and National Railways of Zimbabwe v Railways Artisans Union that where a dispute is specifically provided for in an Act with a remedy also provided, the specialized court has exclusive jurisdiction even if the dispute could also be resolved at common law, as it would make a mockery of legislative intention to allow such jurisdiction to be defeated by mere framing of disputes into common law causes of action. The judge cautioned that arguing the High Court can deal with all matters due to its inherent jurisdiction would result in the court being overloaded with cases that should be competently dealt with by specialized courts. On costs, the court noted that punitive costs ought to be sparingly awarded as they indicate censure and must be justified, and are not granted lightly.

This case clarifies the boundaries between the High Court's inherent jurisdiction and the specialized jurisdiction of the Administrative Court in mining disputes. It establishes that the High Court retains jurisdiction over common law claims for unlawful expropriation of mining property, even where the dispute arises in a mining context, provided the claim does not fall within the specific statutory provisions (such as section 133 of the Mines and Minerals Act) that confer exclusive jurisdiction on specialized courts. The judgment provides guidance on how courts should determine jurisdictional questions by reference to the pleadings and the actual nature of the claim, rather than merely the subject matter context. It demonstrates the principle that parties are bound by their pleadings and courts must confine themselves to the issues as framed by the parties.