Zimbabwe’s mining dispute-resolution system faces an important question: when Provincial Mining Directors (PMDs) exercise delegated judicial powers as Mining Commissioners, are the proceedings conducted with the procedural fairness, discipline and record-keeping expected of an adjudicative process? Mining Zimbabwe can report.
By Rudairo Mapuranga
The distinction is not merely semantic.
When a PMD determines a dispute involving mining claims, boundaries, pegging or encroachment while lawfully exercising delegated Mining Commissioner powers, the officer is not simply facilitating a meeting between competing parties. The officer is performing a statutory judicial function that can have significant consequences for mining rights and operations.
However, not every meeting held at a provincial mining office constitutes a court hearing. The applicable procedural requirements depend on the nature of the proceedings, the powers being exercised and the relevant provisions of the law.
The central issue is whether, when a PMD formally determines a mining dispute, the process affords the parties a fair opportunity to present their cases and produces a properly recorded decision.
The distinction is particularly important because Zimbabwe’s mining sector depends on certainty over mining rights. A dispute over a claim boundary can affect exploration, mine development, production, equipment deployment and investment decisions. Where the dispute-resolution process itself becomes vulnerable to challenge, uncertainty can continue long after the original dispute should have been settled.
A PMD Is Not Simply Chairing a Meeting
The Mines and Minerals Act [Chapter 21:05] provides for Mining Commissioners to exercise statutory powers in the determination of mining disputes.
Section 346 addresses the examination of witnesses on oath and the recording of their evidence in writing. Section 360 provides for the procedure in the Mining Commissioner’s court to accord, so far as practicable, with the law and rules governing civil proceedings in magistrates’ courts.
These provisions underline the importance of procedural discipline when judicial powers are exercised.
The law does not necessarily require every proceeding to follow an identical courtroom format. Less formal hearings may be permitted in certain circumstances, provided the process complies with the applicable law, remains fair and the decision is properly recorded.
The key distinction is between an ordinary administrative engagement and proceedings in which an officer is formally exercising the statutory power to adjudicate a dispute.
Where a PMD has been lawfully delegated the relevant Mining Commissioner powers, the procedural responsibilities attached to that function cannot simply be disregarded because the proceedings take place at a provincial mining office rather than a conventional courtroom.
The Importance of a Proper Record
The concern over procedural discipline is not simply about how a hearing looks or where it takes place. It is about whether the process can be examined and its outcome justified.
A reliable record should establish what happened during the proceedings, what evidence was presented, what submissions were made, which issues were considered and how the final determination was reached, subject to the applicable legal requirements.
Such a record is important if a decision is subsequently challenged or reviewed by a competent court.
A mining dispute cannot be reduced to a conversation in an office followed by a conclusion announced by an official. Where the law requires evidence and proceedings to be recorded, the record is an essential part of the adjudicative process.
The statutory provisions governing the Mining Commissioner’s court recognise the importance of recording evidence and following appropriate procedures. The precise requirements must, however, be assessed against the circumstances and applicable provisions of the law.
This is particularly important in mining disputes, where decisions can have substantial financial consequences for claim holders, investors and operating companies.
The Limits of Administrative Decision-Making
The exercise of delegated judicial authority raises a further question: who must personally hear and determine a dispute?
Administrative officers routinely receive reports from colleagues and make decisions based on information supplied by subordinate officials. However, where the law vests adjudicative authority in a particular officer, that authority must be exercised within the limits of the applicable delegation and statutory framework.
A PMD exercising delegated judicial powers must therefore understand the extent of that authority and the responsibilities that accompany it.
The distinction between gathering information administratively and conducting a judicial hearing is important. Depending on the applicable law, administrative assistance may be permissible, but it should not be confused with transferring a judicial function to an officer who has not been authorised to exercise it.
The process must be structured in a manner that respects the parties’ rights and ensures that the person legally responsible for the determination exercises the authority conferred by law.
The Meeting Culture Problem
This is where the mining administration needs to confront an uncomfortable question.
What happens when an officer who has judicial powers approaches a dispute with the culture and procedures of an administrative meeting?
I have personally witnessed proceedings involving mining disputes where the process appeared much closer to an informal meeting than a formal judicial hearing.
That observation is not a claim that every PMD conducts proceedings in the same manner. It nevertheless raises an important institutional question: if PMDs are expected to exercise judicial powers, are they adequately trained and supported to perform those functions?
The issue is not whether every hearing must replicate the procedures of a conventional courtroom in every detail. Rather, it is whether the process followed is appropriate to the statutory function being exercised and meets the requirements of fairness, accountability and proper record-keeping.
A person sitting in a judicial capacity must understand that the process is as important as the conclusion.
It is not enough simply to gather the parties in a room, hear competing versions of events and announce a decision where the applicable law requires a more structured process.
The parties must be afforded a fair opportunity to present their cases. Evidence must be handled in accordance with the applicable requirements. Proceedings must be recorded where required, and the presiding officer must remain within the limits of the authority conferred by law.
The final determination must be based on a process capable of withstanding legal scrutiny.
The concern is also being raised from within the mining and project-management sector.
Cris Katogu, Lead Consultant at CrisJohns Projects Consultancy, warned against allowing statutory dispute resolution at provincial mining offices to become indistinguishable from informal administrative gatherings.
Katogu said the consequences could extend beyond individual disputes to broader mineral-rights compliance and project risk.
“From a project management and mineral rights compliance perspective, treating judicial disputes like administrative meetings at the Provincial Mining Director (PMD) level introduces severe, avoidable risk into Zimbabwe’s mining ecosystem. When proceedings are stripped of sworn evidence, verbatim records, and due process, they risk degenerating into little more than ‘kangaroo courts’—maintaining the illusion of statutory authority while failing every basic test of natural justice,” Katogu said.
His warning highlights the distinction between administrative engagement and adjudication.
For mining companies, investors and rights holders, the issue is not simply whether a dispute is eventually resolved. It is whether the process used to resolve it is sufficiently robust to withstand legal scrutiny.
The Record Is Not Paperwork
One of the easiest mistakes in administrative environments is to treat record-keeping as clerical work.
In an adjudicative proceeding, it serves a much more important purpose.
The record establishes what happened. It shows what evidence was presented, what submissions were made, what issues were before the officer and how the final decision was reached.
Without an adequate record, a court or other competent reviewing authority may face difficulties determining whether the proceedings were properly conducted and whether the decision was reached lawfully.
For this reason, record-keeping should not be regarded as an optional administrative exercise when the law requires a record of proceedings or evidence.
The objective is not paperwork for its own sake. It is accountability, transparency and the ability to examine the decision-making process.
Why Natural Justice Matters in Mining
The principle of audi alteram partem—that a person affected by a decision should be given a fair opportunity to be heard—is fundamental to procedural fairness.
In mining, its implications can be immediate and significant.
A stop-order, boundary determination or other directive can affect production, exploration, equipment deployment, employment and investment.
Where a decision is made without providing an affected party with notice or an opportunity to respond when the law requires it, the decision may be vulnerable to legal challenge.
The same concern arises where a dispute is determined using information that one party has not had a fair opportunity to address.
This does not mean that every decision made in the absence of one party is automatically unlawful. The legality of a decision depends on the applicable law, the circumstances in which it was made and whether the required procedural safeguards were observed.
The central point is that statutory authority does not remove the obligation to comply with applicable requirements of procedural fairness.
For a sector built around long-term capital commitments and mineral rights, procedural certainty is an important component of commercial certainty.
Why the Issue Matters to Investors and Miners
A boundary dispute can affect access to ore bodies. An encroachment dispute can prevent the development of part of a mining claim. Uncertainty over the validity or extent of mining rights can complicate financing, exploration expenditure, equipment deployment and production planning.
For small-scale miners, the consequences can be equally serious. A dispute over a relatively small area of ground can affect livelihoods, equipment investments and access to mineral deposits.
For larger operators and investors, unresolved disputes introduce uncertainty into the assessment of mining assets.
A specialised dispute-resolution system is intended to help reduce that uncertainty.
If a determination is subsequently set aside or declared invalid because of a jurisdictional or procedural defect, the dispute may remain unresolved. The parties may have to return to the relevant process, while uncertainty surrounding the mining ground continues.
That can be costly for everyone involved.
Training PMDs Is Essential
If PMDs are expected to exercise delegated judicial functions, judicial and procedural training should form part of the institutional framework supporting those responsibilities.
The Ministry of Mines and Mining Development should consider a structured programme covering the Mines and Minerals Act, applicable civil procedure, natural justice, evidence, examination of witnesses, recording proceedings, preparation of court records and drafting of determinations.
The training should also deal specifically with delegated authority, including its limits and the distinction between administrative support and the exercise of judicial powers.
Officers need to understand when they are carrying out ordinary administrative duties and when they are formally determining a dispute under the statutory framework.
Such training would help promote consistency, strengthen procedural safeguards and reduce the risk of decisions being challenged because of avoidable procedural shortcomings.
A Benchbook Could Bring Consistency
The Ministry could also develop a procedural manual or benchbook for PMDs exercising Mining Commissioner powers.
Such a document could establish a standard framework from the filing of a complaint to the issuing of a determination, while recognising the flexibility permitted by law in appropriate circumstances.
It could provide guidance on notices, preliminary directions, hearings, evidence, witnesses, site inspections, record-keeping and written determinations.
It could also clearly distinguish between the ordinary administrative functions of a provincial mining office and the judicial functions being exercised when a PMD adjudicates a mining dispute.
A manual of this nature would not require PMD offices to become conventional courts. Its purpose would be to ensure that proceedings are conducted consistently with the law and the procedural standards appropriate to the function being exercised.
It could also help miners and their legal representatives understand what to expect when a dispute is formally brought before a Mining Commissioner.
Parliament Has a Role Too
There is also a legislative issue that deserves attention.
The Mines and Minerals Act uses the statutory terminology of Mining Commissioners, while the mining administration operates through Provincial Mining Directors who may exercise delegated functions.
Clear guidance on the source and scope of those powers is important for officers, mining rights holders and other parties involved in disputes.
Future legislative reforms could clarify the officer responsible for mining dispute adjudication, the source and limits of that authority, the extent to which functions may be delegated and the procedures governing hearings and records.
The law should also make clear the distinction between permissible administrative assistance and any attempted transfer of adjudicative authority that is not authorised by statute.
Greater clarity would help reduce unnecessary disputes over jurisdiction and procedure while providing mining rights holders with a more predictable framework.
A Court Cannot Be Run Like a Meeting
The fundamental issue is simple.
A provincial mining office can conduct meetings. It can conduct inspections, receive reports and consult miners, companies, communities and other stakeholders.
But when a PMD lawfully exercises delegated Mining Commissioner powers to determine a dispute, the character of the function changes.
The officer is adjudicating.
That requires compliance with the applicable legal and procedural requirements, including fairness to the parties and proper record-keeping.
The issue should not be reduced to whether every proceeding looks like a conventional courtroom hearing. The law may permit less formal procedures in certain circumstances. What matters is whether the process is lawful, fair and properly documented.
These principles are particularly important where a decision can affect mining rights, halt operations or influence investment decisions.
The question facing the Ministry is therefore not simply whether PMDs should exercise delegated functions. It is whether the institutional framework surrounding those responsibilities provides sufficient training, procedural guidance and accountability.
If a PMD sits to determine a mining dispute, the proceeding must be treated with the seriousness required by the judicial function being exercised.
Not because the officer wears a judicial title.
Not because the hearing takes place in a conventional courtroom.
But because the law confers a judicial responsibility.
PMDs may operate from mining offices. But when they sit to adjudicate disputes, the process cannot be governed by meeting-room rules alone.
