High Court judgement under scrutiny

as violence erupts at contested Bindura mining site

By staff reporter

A contentious land dispute in Bindura’s gold mining sector has escalated into a major legal and security crisis, with a High Court judge facing accusations of issuing a ruling on a date when no court proceedings were held, as violent confrontations at the contested Mining Lease 21 site have left three guard dogs shot dead.

Tensions escalated at the contested Mining Lease 21 site after a judgment allegedly issued by Justice Mandaza in a dispute between Ouro Tanque (Private) Limited and Freda Rebecca Gold Mine Limited began circulating among parties on the ground.

The conflict over control of the mining area has since turned violent, with armed confrontations reported at the site.

Sources close to the developments said three guard dogs were shot during heated clashes as rival groups attempted to assert control over the mining area following the controversial ruling.

The violence has heightened fears of further instability at the site, with security forces now under pressure to maintain order.

The legal dispute stems from an urgent chamber application filed by Ouro Tanque (Private) Limited seeking spoliatory relief to be restored to mining sites it claims to have occupied since April 2022.

The company argued that on 12 February 2026 it was forcibly removed from the site by Freda Rebecca Gold Mine Limited, allegedly with the assistance of members of the Zimbabwe Republic Police.

However, Freda Rebecca Gold Mine maintains that it is the lawful holder of Mining Lease Number 21, which was registered in 1988, and that it has exclusive rights to mine any ore or mineral deposits within the lease area.

The company further argued that the individuals occupying the site were illegal miners discovered in December 2025.

According to submissions contained in the judgment, the police stated that they became involved after violence had erupted at the mining site.

The third respondent indicated that law enforcement officers were “only performing their constitutional mandate to ensure law and order after public violence broke out at the sites of the first respondent.”

Police said a beaconing exercise by Freda Rebecca Gold Mine began on 28 January 2026 and that they were called in on 12 February 2026 when tensions escalated.

However, the nine-page judgment itself appears to contradict that narrative.

It notes that “from all the papers of record, there is no mention of violence at the sites, nor did the first respondent possess an order to interdict or evict the applicant from the site in dispute.”

The uncertainty surrounding the judgment has further inflamed tensions on the ground.

Legal practitioners representing Ouro Tanque have raised serious concerns about the authenticity of the ruling, which carries reference HCH681/26 and is dated 23 February 2026.

In a letter dated 14 March 2026 addressed to Police in Bindura, legal practitioners claimed the judgment only became available to the parties on 12 March 2026.

The lawyers also questioned the legitimacy of the ruling, pointing out that it allegedly refers to a hearing that took place on 23 February 2026 despite claims that no court proceedings were held on that date.

The legal practitioners further noted that the judgment reportedly lacks a formal High Court judgment number, which typically appears in the “HH-” format used for superior court rulings.

They also argued that the order was not accompanied by a writ of ejectment as required under Rule 69 of the High Court Rules.

“Without proper authentication of the judgment by the Registrar of the High Court of Zimbabwe through a writ of ejectment, we firmly hold the position that there is no judgment that is adverse to our client’s operations,” the letter states.

As the legal dispute intensifies, authorities in Bindura now face the difficult task of containing violence at the mining site while questions continue to mount over the validity of the contested High Court judgment.

Legal experts say the situation highlights the potential dangers that arise when disputes over mining rights intersect with contested legal processes.

With tensions already high on the ground, there are growing calls for authorities to urgently clarify the status of the ruling to prevent further violence at the site.

“There was no hearing on 23 February 2026 and the judgment was also not handed down on 23 February 2026. The legal practitioners are not wrong to demand that a writ of ejectment be issued by the Registrar as prescribed by Rule 69(1) of the High Court Rules which mandates the issuance of a writ of execution by the Registrar to enable the Sheriff to execute a High Court judgment.

“This is because, in all prescribed forms for a writ of ejectment, the date that a judgment was handed down must be stated by the Registrar issuing the writ to the Sheriff. The circulating judgment indeed is questionable because if there was no hearing or delivery of judgment on 23 February 2026 , then the judgment is premised on something outside the court proceedings. Where would the judge get a date for the 23rd of February 2026.Such a judgment is worrying in the face of a tribunal of enquiry having been set up by The President of Zimbabwe against a High Court judge who also had almost similar facts. Such judgments are very worrying,” they noted.