raises eyebrows after contradictory ground findings
BY STAFF REPORTER
A High Court’s decision to grant a spoliation order against Freda Rebecca Gold Mine has triggered sharp debate after a court-directed ground verification exercise appeared to contradict key aspects of the final ruling.
Despite detailed on-site findings showing that artisanal miners disputed the applicants’ claims of prior occupation and despite no clear evidence of forcible removal being recorded the High Court ordered restoration of possession at the Blue Tents mining area near Bindura.
In Case No. HCH 518/26, three artisanal miners Dinoh Sangara, Makamba Magwenzi and Biggie Maphosa were granted interim restoration of alleged mining sites after Justice Mambara ruled they had been unlawfully dispossessed.
The first applicant’s claim was dismissed for failure to prove possession.Following contested submissions, the court ordered a ground visit to determine who, if anyone, had been in peaceful and undisturbed possession of identifiable pits.What emerged during that visit, however, was a series of conflicting claims.
When Dinoh Sangara identified a pit as his, another miner immediately challenged the claim, asserting that he had opened and operated it months earlier.
Several miners present reportedly supported that version and stated they did not know Sangara. Similar disputes arose when the other applicants pointed out their alleged pits.
In each case, miners working on site claimed ownership and refuted the applicants’ assertions of prior control.
The report also stated that none of the applicants or surrounding miners alleged they had been forcibly removed by police or by Freda Rebecca Mine.
Spoliation law requires proof of peaceful and undisturbed possession, as well as wrongful deprivation.
The police ground commander, however, stated no complaints of harassment had been received.
The mine’s representative maintained that fencing was a statutory compliance measure and not an eviction exercise.
“Neither the police nor the Freda Rebecca Mine caused the displacement of anyone from any pit within the blue tent area. He witnessed the beaconing and fencing process as carry out patrols in the area monitoring activities of his subordinates. The police were and shall continue to be in the area to ensure law and order prevails. He received no complaints and did not see anyone being harassed by the police during his tour of duty within the Blue tents area,” it reads.
“Mr Jubilant Magureyi who was coordinating the beaconing and fencing exercise stated that the company had gone a long way in securing its mining area and formalising tributes to artisanal miners in its part of the blue tents area. He mentioned that the company does not harbour any intention to remove anyone from the mining area. The beaconing and fencing exercise is only a statutory compliance and is meant to demarcate its mining area. The applicants were not part of the miners operating in its mining area,” reads the court documents.
Despite these recorded observations, the court granted interim restoration to three of the four applicants, concluding that they had been unlawfully dispossessed.
The first applicant’s claim was dismissed for lack of proof of possession.
Experts argue that Justice Mambara’s judgement would create a serious jurisprudential difficulty since it orders a restoration of ground possession on persons who were never on any ground in the first place.
The apparent disconnect between the on-site findings and the final order has intensified scrutiny within legal and mining circles.
Observers argue that where a court directs factual verification, the conclusions drawn must visibly align with the evidence gathered.
