By Our Court Correspondent
BINDURA — Botha Mine is facing accusations of attempting to derail a court-mandated ground verification process through what legal experts describe as a “gymnastics” notice of appeal.
The development comes as the Environmental Management Agency (EMA) has formally invited parties to a site inspection scheduled for tomorrow, 2 April 2026, following a Magistrates Court order directing the agency to physically demonstrate the scope of Botha Mine’s Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) certificate.
In a letter dated 1 April 2026, EMA notified Side Electricals (Private) Limited — trading as Botha Mine — Navid Incorporated (Freda Mine’s appointed project manager), and the Officer Commanding ZRP Bindura District of the proposed ground verification exercise, to be conducted in compliance with Paragraph 3 of the court order issued under case number BNPCG74/26.
However, in what is being characterized as a desperate attempt to halt the verification process, Botha Mine’s legal practitioners, drafted a notice of appeal on the same day — a move that legal practitioners representing environmentalist Leeroy Kambasha, have swiftly condemned as “highly irregular and mischievous.
“The notice of appeal, on behalf of Botha Mine, presents a striking procedural anomaly. While the document indicates the appeal is directed to “THE REGISTRAR High Court of Zimbabwe BULAWAYO,” it simultaneously purports to be a filing from a judgment originating in Bindura Magistrates Court, which falls under Mashonaland Central Province — a jurisdiction squarely within the Harare High Court’s territorial authority.”The Harare High Court (the main seat) handles cases from the northern region of Zimbabwe, including Mashonaland Central Province,” the legal practitioners stated in a letter to Botha mine dated 1 April 2026.
“Filing an appeal in Bulawayo is procedurally incorrect, and we advise that your purported appeal is defective in this regard.”
Legal observers note that the defective drafting created a situation where the same appeal could theoretically be presented to registry officials in either Harare or Bulawayo in an attempt to exploit confusion.
Sources close to the matter indicated that Botha Mine’s legal strategy employed two distinct maneuvers aimed at suspending the interim order.
First, the notice of appeal was drafted in such a way that it could be presented to registry officials in either Harare or Bulawayo, potentially exploiting confusion at the filing stage.
“It’s a spin aimed at hoodwinking unsuspecting registry officials,” the legal experts observed.
Second, and perhaps more significantly, the appeal purports to challenge what Botha Mine’s legal representatives describe as a “judgment” dated 31 March 2026.
However, the attached court documents tell a different story.
The 31 March 2026 order, issued by Her Worship Mrs M. Msika, RM, is in fact a case management order that merely dismissed an application for discharge as premature and postponed the matter to 10 April 2026 for argument.
Critically, the interim interdict granted on 27 March 2026 remains in force.
“It is wrong to attach a case management order directing parties to file papers and return to court for hearing on 10 April 2026,” the law firm stated.
“This is not an appealable order.”By framing the non-appealable case management order as a “judgment,” Botha Mine appears to be attempting to create the impression that the substantive matter has been finalized, when in fact proceedings remain active and the interim order remains operational.
Despite the eleventh-hour legal maneuvering, EMA has proceeded with arrangements for the site inspection, scheduling the exercise for 10:00 AM on 2 April 2026, with parties directed to meet at ZRP District Headquarters in Bindura.
The court order, issued on 27 March 2026, specifically mandates that the 3rd Respondent (EMA) must show the 2nd Respondent (Side Electricals) “the extent that 2nd respondent’s EIA certificate applies,” with the inspection to be conducted in the presence of the 1st and 5th Respondents — Navid Incorporated and the Officer Commanding ZRP Bindura District, respectively.
Paragraph 2 of the same order stipulates that “the 1st and 2nd Respondents, their agents, contractors and proxies mining within an area commonly known as Kitsiyatota and on areas known as Headgear, Morocco, GMB, Gwingwindi and Phoenix Prince mine be and are hereby ordered to forthwith upon service of the order stop all mining and mining related activities until the 3rd Respondent has shown the 2nd Respondent… the extent that 2nd respondent’s EIA certificate applies.
“EMA’s Director General has requested that all parties confirm availability of their authorized representatives by the close of business on 1 April 2026.The letter from the law firm has indicated they hold “strict instructions to seek costs against you on appeal,” characterizing the conduct displayed as “not appropriate.”
The matter highlights ongoing tensions surrounding mining operations in the Bindura area, where questions over the scope and validity of environmental impact assessments have become a flashpoint between mining entities and environmental compliance authorities.
The matter has been scheduled to return to the Bindura Magistrates Court on 10 April 2026 for argument, and EMA moving ahead with the court-ordered ground verification.
The intended appeal, which seeks to have the “ex parte application or an interdict… dismissed” with costs on an attorney-and-client scale, remains a document without effect.
