Justice Mutevedzi’s ruling shines light on Zimbabwe’s chaotic mining boundaries

When Munamato Mutevedzi opened his judgment at the Bulawayo High Court with a metaphor about borrowed robes, he was not merely indulging in judicial wit. He was exposing a deeper problem within Zimbabwe’s mining governance system — the improper exercise of delegated authority and the administrative confusion that often fuels disputes over mineral rights.

“Banter has often been thrown around that when one is wearing borrowed robes and is sitting in the sun, the owner of the robes has the right to instruct the borrower to move into the shade,” Justice Mutevedzi wrote. “If that can happen, then it is certainly taboo for the borrower to lend out the clothes to another.”

The imagery captured the essence of a legal principle central to the case: authority that has been delegated cannot simply be passed on again.

“It is impermissible for one to delegate powers that would have been delegated to him or her,” the judge ruled.
His remarks came in a dispute that has since become a window into the wider challenges shaping Zimbabwe’s mining sector — a field rich in mineral promise but frequently entangled in land conflicts, overlapping claims and administrative uncertainty.

The case pitted Big Valley Masters (Private) Limited against  Shurugwi South Member of Parliament, Wilson Mhuri, who was cited in his personal capacity as a miner.

At the centre of the dispute was Skyrocket 2 Mine, a mining claim registered by Big Valley Masters in 1999. For years the company operated the claim without incident until a neighbouring block — Surprise 459 — allegedly began creeping into its territory.

The company complained that Mhuri had encroached onto its mining location and reported the matter to the Midlands Provincial Mining Director on June 17, 2025.

But when the Provincial Mining Director issued his determination on July 17, 2025, he ruled in favour of Mhuri, confirming the position of the Surprise 459 claim and directing Big Valley Masters to revert to the position of its claim as it existed at registration.

It argued that the determination had been made without a proper hearing and that verified maps and geographic coordinates had been ignored.

Represented by Masamvu & Da Silva-Gustavo Law Chambers, Big Valley Masters approached the High Court seeking a judicial review. The Provincial Mining Director was represented by the Civil Division of the Attorney General’s Office, while Mhuri was represented by Calderwood, Bryce Hendrie and Partners.

Officials from the Provincial Mining Director’s office had met the parties and conducted preliminary inquiries, but the director himself had not attended either the meeting or the subsequent site visit.

Instead, subordinates handled the proceedings before the director later issued the determination.

For Justice Mutevedzi, this procedural arrangement violated a fundamental legal rule embedded in Zimbabwe’s Mines and Minerals Act.

Mining disputes are ordinarily determined by a Mining Commissioner. Provincial Mining Directors may only preside over such matters through authority delegated by the Secretary of Mines.

Because those powers are themselves delegated, the judge ruled they cannot be sub-delegated.
The consequence, he said, was that the entire process had collapsed.

“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 proceedings,” Justice Mutevedzi said.

The court set aside the determination and ordered that the dispute be heard afresh by a different mining commissioner. Mhuri was also ordered to pay the applicant’s legal costs.

Although the case revolved around procedural legality, its implications reach far beyond a single dispute.
Across Zimbabwe, mining conflicts have become increasingly common, particularly in rural communities where mineral rights intersect with agriculture and communal land use.

More than 70 percent of mining disputes in Zimbabwe involve land-use clashes between miners and farmers.
These conflicts are frequently triggered by overlapping claims, poorly defined boundaries, outdated paper records and inconsistent administrative decisions.

In many cases, two miners may claim the same ground. In others, mining operations collide with farmland that communities depend on for survival.
The result is a volatile mixture of economic competition, legal ambiguity and social tension.

The government has attempted to address these structural weaknesses through reforms proposed in the Mines and Minerals Bill 2025.
One of the most important provisions in the bill is the creation of a Mining Cadastre Registry, outlined in several clauses and Part III of the proposed legislation.

The registry would create a digital record of mining rights — replacing a largely paper-based system that has long been blamed for boundary confusion and overlapping claims.

Experiences elsewhere in the region suggest that such systems can transform mining governance.

Countries like Zambia, Mozambique and Tanzania have already adopted computerized mining cadastre systems.
These systems allow governments, investors and communities to view verified mining boundaries and ownership details in real time.

If implemented effectively, Zimbabwe’s proposed Mining Cadastre Information Management System could shift mining disputes away from physical confrontation and toward transparent administrative resolution.
Communities would also gain greater confidence in how mineral resources are allocated.

Yet even as the reform promises greater clarity, analysts say the bill contains important gaps.
One concern is that the cadastre registry only becomes the official record after a Presidential declaration that it is “operational”.
The legislation does not clearly define what operational status means or how stakeholders will know when the transition from the old system is complete.

In local terms, some describe it as “kufamba murima” — walking in the dark.
Another weakness is that the cadastre registry is not integrated with Zimbabwe’s land title system or environmental approval processes.
This means miners could still peg claims on cultivated farms or protected land without automatic alerts in the system.
Farmers, who often only learn of mining claims when survey pegs appear on their fields, would remain exposed to sudden conflicts.

Clause 20 of the bill requires disclosure of beneficial ownership of mining rights.
But the provision lacks enforcement mechanisms, penalties for false declarations and clear due diligence procedures.
Without those safeguards, critics warn that hidden ownership structures could continue to flourish, allowing powerful actors to operate behind proxies.

While the bill imposes strict deadlines on miners — including a 31-day window for provisional registration — it does not impose similar timelines on officials such as Provincial Mining Directors or the cadastre registrar.
If officials delay decisions, miners and farmers could remain trapped in legal uncertainty.

Justice Mutevedzi’s ruling may have resolved the dispute between Big Valley Masters and Mhuri, but it has also highlighted deeper structural questions facing Zimbabwe’s mining sector.

Will the creation of a Mining Cadastre Registry — complete with a registrar and compliance officers embedded in primary mining legislation — finally provide the institutional backbone needed to enforce transparency and accountability in mineral rights allocation?

Or will weak enforcement and political interference continue to keep disputes alive in the shadows?
And as Zimbabwe digitises its mineral rights management, will the new system attract fairer investment and reduce costly conflicts — or will rent-seeking practices continue to fuel mistrust and confrontation at community level?

For now, the High Court’s intervention has illuminated a simple truth: Zimbabwe’s mining conflicts are not only about what lies beneath the ground.

They are also about how power, authority and responsibility are exercised above it.