News / National
Court clears way for Zimasco's US$269K chrome theft trial
2 hrs ago |
52 Views
A Bulawayo High Court judge has dismissed a preliminary objection seeking to stop a US$269,000 chrome ore dispute involving mining company Zimasco, paving the way for a full civil trial over allegations of unlawful chrome extraction.
The case pits Zimasco against Fidelis Mudzengi in a legal battle centred on claims that chrome ore was illegally removed from a mining site in Lalapanzi.
According to court papers, Zimasco alleges that Mudzengi unlawfully extracted 27,349 tonnes of raw chrome ore fines from its Rhodesdale 3 mining claim between May and June 2021.
The company claims the ore would have yielded approximately 2,735 tonnes of chrome concentrate with an export value of US$269,474. It is seeking recovery of the amount, together with interest and legal costs.
Before the matter could proceed to trial, Mudzengi raised a preliminary jurisdictional challenge, arguing that the dispute fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Administrative Court because it involved compensation issues governed by the Mines and Minerals Act.
His legal team contended that the High Court should not entertain matters reserved for specialist mining tribunals.
However, Bulawayo High Court Judge Justice Evangelista Kabasa rejected the argument, finding that the dispute was not one concerning compensation arising from underground mining operations.
"There is nothing in the pleadings which speaks to mining operations carried on any underground extension block," Justice Kabasa ruled.
"The pleadings are therefore clear as to what the parties are wrangling over."
The judge said the central issue before the court was whether Mudzengi unlawfully extracted chrome ore fines belonging to Zimasco and, if so, the extent of any financial loss suffered by the company.
Mudzengi denies wrongdoing. He argues that the ore dump in question extended beyond Zimasco's mining boundaries into an independent mining location.
According to his defence, he engaged a Zimasco representative who allegedly confirmed the boundaries before extraction commenced. He further claims that he paid US$2,300 for approximately 2,300 tonnes of ore recovered during the operation.
Justice Kabasa said such arguments relate to the substance of the dispute and should be determined during the trial rather than through a preliminary objection.
"Whether the plaintiff can prove that the dump was its property and that the defendant unlawfully deprived it of the tonnage claimed is an issue for trial," she ruled.
While acknowledging that certain disputes arising under Section 133 of the Mines and Minerals Act fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Administrative Court, the judge found that the present matter did not fall within that category.
The ruling clears the way for a full hearing of the case, where both parties will present evidence regarding ownership of the chrome ore dump, the extent of any extraction and the financial consequences arising from the disputed mining activities.
Zimasco is represented by Danziger and Partners, while Mudzengi is represented by Farai and Associates Law Chambers.
The case pits Zimasco against Fidelis Mudzengi in a legal battle centred on claims that chrome ore was illegally removed from a mining site in Lalapanzi.
According to court papers, Zimasco alleges that Mudzengi unlawfully extracted 27,349 tonnes of raw chrome ore fines from its Rhodesdale 3 mining claim between May and June 2021.
The company claims the ore would have yielded approximately 2,735 tonnes of chrome concentrate with an export value of US$269,474. It is seeking recovery of the amount, together with interest and legal costs.
Before the matter could proceed to trial, Mudzengi raised a preliminary jurisdictional challenge, arguing that the dispute fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Administrative Court because it involved compensation issues governed by the Mines and Minerals Act.
His legal team contended that the High Court should not entertain matters reserved for specialist mining tribunals.
However, Bulawayo High Court Judge Justice Evangelista Kabasa rejected the argument, finding that the dispute was not one concerning compensation arising from underground mining operations.
"There is nothing in the pleadings which speaks to mining operations carried on any underground extension block," Justice Kabasa ruled.
"The pleadings are therefore clear as to what the parties are wrangling over."
The judge said the central issue before the court was whether Mudzengi unlawfully extracted chrome ore fines belonging to Zimasco and, if so, the extent of any financial loss suffered by the company.
Mudzengi denies wrongdoing. He argues that the ore dump in question extended beyond Zimasco's mining boundaries into an independent mining location.
According to his defence, he engaged a Zimasco representative who allegedly confirmed the boundaries before extraction commenced. He further claims that he paid US$2,300 for approximately 2,300 tonnes of ore recovered during the operation.
Justice Kabasa said such arguments relate to the substance of the dispute and should be determined during the trial rather than through a preliminary objection.
"Whether the plaintiff can prove that the dump was its property and that the defendant unlawfully deprived it of the tonnage claimed is an issue for trial," she ruled.
While acknowledging that certain disputes arising under Section 133 of the Mines and Minerals Act fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Administrative Court, the judge found that the present matter did not fall within that category.
The ruling clears the way for a full hearing of the case, where both parties will present evidence regarding ownership of the chrome ore dump, the extent of any extraction and the financial consequences arising from the disputed mining activities.
Zimasco is represented by Danziger and Partners, while Mudzengi is represented by Farai and Associates Law Chambers.
Source - Southern Eye
Join the discussion
Loading comments…
