Ministry Challenges Simbi’s Standing in Fletcher 986 Mining Battle, Dispute Heads Back to High Court

Masvingo — The Ministry of Lands and Rural Development has mounted a preliminary legal challenge against Zodwa Simbi's attempt to nullify the registration of the Fletcher 986 mining claim, arguing that she lacks the legal standing to bring the application because she has no recognised tenure rights over the disputed land.

The dispute, before the High Court of Zimbabwe under case HCMSC612/25, has become one of the Midlands' most closely watched mining and land conflicts, pitting farming interests against mining rights at Kanuck 4 Farm along the Gweru-Shurugwi Road.

The matter was heard at the Masvingo High Court on July 13, 2026, before being postponed to a later date.

At the centre of the proceedings is Certificate of Registration No. 33810 for the Fletcher 986 mining claim.

The Simbis, working with her husband and former ZANU PF councilor, Charles Simbi, want the court to declare the certificate null and void, arguing that it was unlawfully issued.

In the application, the Simbis allege that the mining title was granted without an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) certificate from the Environmental Management Agency (EMA), that mining activities were authorised on private land without her consent and that mining operations are being conducted dangerously close to her homestead.

She also seeks costs on the attorney-and-client scale.

However, in their plea, the sixth and seventh defendants, the Provincial Resettlement Officer and the Minister of Lands and Rural Development, formerly the Ministry of Lands, Agriculture, Fisheries, Water and Rural Resettlement, have raised what lawyers refer to as a point in limine, arguing that the application should fail before the court even considers its merits.

Under the heading "No locus standi," the Ministry states that "The Plaintiff is not a holder of tenure documents over the land in question, thus she has no rights over it or legal standing."

The government respondents go further in paragraph nine of their plea, disputing Simbi's claim to lawful occupation.

"The 6th & 7th Defendant deny the Plaintiff is a holder of tenure documents over the said piece of land.

"Plaintiff does not hold any rights over the land in question.

The Plaintiff is just making assumptions and is posing a blanket allegation. Plaintiff is challenged to the strictest proof thereof," the challenge reads.

The Ministry argues that without recognised tenure rights, Simbi cannot lawfully seek to cancel a mining title issued through statutory processes.

The government has also rejected allegations that Fletcher 986 was improperly registered.

In its defence, authorities maintain that "The mining title was issued in compliance with the Mines and Minerals Act...The Plaintiff has no rights in the land.

"The relevant necessary procedures were carried out. The mining title is valid and issued in terms of the law."

Consequently, the Attorney General's Civil Division, representing the Provincial Mining Director, the Minister of Mines, the Provincial Resettlement Officer and the Minister of Lands, asks the court to dismiss the application.

"WHEREFORE the Defendants pray for the dismissal of Plaintiff's claim with costs on a higher scale," the challenge reads.

New Generation Mining Syndicate, represented by Mavhiringidze & Mashanyare Legal Practitioners, has similarly defended the validity of Certificate No. 33810, arguing that the mining rights were lawfully acquired and deserve legal protection.

The syndicate disputes allegations that the certificate was issued without environmental approval, that mining is being conducted unlawfully on private land or that its operations infringe Simbi's rights.

It also argues that Simbi has no legally recognised rights capable of overriding the mining certificate.

Simbi is represented by Mandipa, Makwara & Chikukwa Legal Practitioners, while the government respondents are represented by the Civil Division of the Attorney General's Office.

The dispute has also spawned separate litigation under HCMSC24/26, in which New Generation Mining Syndicate seeks an interdict restraining Zodwa and Charles Simbi from allegedly interfering with mining operations at Fletcher 986.

The Simbis oppose that application, arguing that the mining certificate itself is invalid and therefore cannot form the legal foundation for an interdict.

They deny engaging in unlawful mining, maintaining that they were undertaking lawful farming activities, including constructing a cattle kraal on their plot.

They further contend that the interdict application is procedurally defective because there are material disputes of fact that should not be resolved through urgent motion proceedings.

They also accuse New Generation of abusing court processes by repeatedly seeking urgent relief instead of pursuing contempt proceedings under an earlier order in HCMSC230/24.

The Simbis also rely on a provisional order granted in HCMSC581/25, which they argue protected their farming activities at Plot 42, Kanuck 4 Farm.

The latest civil proceedings follow an earlier criminal prosecution in which Charles and Zodwa Simbi were convicted by the Gweru Magistrates' Court on charges relating to an allegedly fraudulent resettlement offer letter for Plot 42.

Those convictions were later overturned by the High Court after Justices Sunsley Zisengwe and Christopher Dube-Banda allowed the couple's appeal.

While the criminal convictions were quashed, the High Court did not determine ownership of the disputed land or validate the land permit relied upon by the Simbis.

During the criminal trial, officials from both the Ministry of Lands and Vungu Rural District Council testified that they had no official records supporting the disputed offer letter, while the defence maintained that the permit was genuine and argued that the trial court had erred in law.

Court records indicate that New Generation Mining Syndicate has consistently maintained that its mining operations are situated on Lot 5 of Kanuck Farm, while the Simbis rely on documents they say allocate them Lot 4, also referred to in some proceedings as Plot 42, of Kanuck Farm.