“Namatirai, what happens in this scenario? My client has a farm in Chegutu. Someone has just knocked on his door with registered certificates to mine on the farm. My client is livid and has hired aggressive security details to patrol the whole property twenty-four hours a day. The person claiming to hold the mining right has promised to come back with the police. How do I advise my client before this turns into a full-blown war?”
By Namatirai Ruzvidzo
This was the frantic question from a learned colleague. He was not exaggerating. By the time he called me, the farm had more security than a national treasure, while the prospective miner was preparing to return with “the full force of the law”. The cows, who had not been consulted, continued grazing between the rival legal positions.
It is not an unusual scenario. Across Zimbabwe, farmers and miners can face one another across a gate, each holding a document and believing it gives complete control. The farmer points to a title deed, crops, cattle and years of investment. The miner points to a prospecting licence, certificate of registration or mining records.
The question is not simply, “Who has the stronger paper?” The real questions are: What does each document legally authorise? Can the miner enter the farm? What must happen before mining begins? Who pays for damage? And what should both sides do before a disagreement becomes a physical confrontation?
The mineral beneath the farm is not automatically the farmer’s property
Under the Mines and Minerals Act [Chapter 21:05], rights to minerals are dealt with separately from surface ownership. Owning or occupying land does not automatically mean owning every mineral beneath it. Discovering a valuable mineral deposit on private property does not give the landowner the legal right to extract or sell it. Anyone wishing to explore or extract resources must obtain the appropriate state-issued credentials such as a prospecting licence, mining lease, or special grant regardless of who holds the land’s surface title.
Furthermore, a significant legislative overhaul is underway; the recently gazetted Mines and Minerals Bill aims to replace the current Act with a modernised Mining Cadastre Register and further redefine how overlapping land and mining rights interact.
That does not mean, however, that a mining certificate is a magic key that opens every farm gate. The State’s regulatory control over minerals, the miner’s mining right and the farmer’s rights as surface owner or occupier must be considered together. A mining right may permit work in a defined location, but it does not erase every surface interest connected to it.
This is why the farmer should not assume that a Title Deed automatically defeats a mining claim, and the miner should not assume that a certificate automatically defeats the farmer’s right to object to unlawful entry or damage.
The answer depends on the land, the type and status of the mining right, the affected area and the procedure followed before entry.
A prospecting licence is not the same as a mining title
One of the first things to establish is what the visitor actually holds. A prospecting licence may confer rights to prospect and search for minerals, subject to the limits imposed by the Act. It is not necessarily proof that the holder has a registered mining location authorising full-scale extraction.
There is a material difference between saying, “I have permission to look for minerals,” and saying, “I hold a registered mining claim and may conduct mining operations here.” The method of entry, the activity proposed and the permissions required may differ.
A farmer who is shown a prospecting licence should request a copy and verify it through the relevant mining office. A miner should be ready to produce the actual documents supporting the proposed activity, rather than relying on a photograph, a WhatsApp message or the word of a messenger.
The documents should be checked for the holder’s name, registered location, mineral, coordinates, date of issue, current status and conditions. If a company is involved, the presenter’s authority should also be established.
A certificate that relates to a different location does not become valid merely because the holder points towards the correct mountain.
The farm gate is not a courtroom
When there is a disagreement, both parties are often tempted to turn the farm gate into the first hearing. The farmer puts up armed or aggressive security and announces that nobody will enter. The miner arrives with workers, vehicles or police officers and announces that the farmer has no right to interfere. Voices rise. Phones come out. Someone records the argument. Before long, the dispute has acquired an audience but lost all calm reasoning.
This is dangerous!!!
A miner should not force entry simply because the miner believes the claim is valid. A farmer should not use violence, threats or unlawful self-help merely because the farm is privately owned. Neither side should assume that the presence of police automatically resolves the underlying civil or administrative dispute.
The immediate objective should be to prevent trespass, intimidation, damage or violence while the position is investigated. If necessary, the parties should seek an interdict or other relief from a court and engage the relevant Provincial Mining Office.
The farm gate may be where the argument begins. It should not be where the law ends.
Access must be dealt with before operations begin
The practical issue is usually access. A mining right is of little use if the holder cannot lawfully reach the working area, but the right of access must be exercised through the legal framework and with regard to the surface owner’s interests.
The farmer and miner should identify the route, working area, equipment, hours of operation, stockpiles, treatment plant, water points, fuel storage and waste areas. These details should be recorded in a written access or surface-use agreement.
The agreement should address notice, gates, security, roads, fencing, crops, livestock, buildings, boreholes, electricity lines and existing farm operations. It should identify who may enter, including contractors and employees.
It should provide a method for reporting damage and determining compensation. A joint inspection, photographs and a baseline condition report can prevent later arguments about crops, roads or livestock.
A miner who is serious about operating on farmland should welcome a clear access agreement. It protects the project from accusations of trespass and gives the farmer a predictable mechanism for protecting legitimate surface interests.
Compensation is not a licence to cause unlimited damage
Mining may interfere with farming. Roads may be widened, fields disturbed, fences moved, water affected and land temporarily removed from cultivation or grazing.
The law provides for compensation in appropriate circumstances, but this is not an advance payment for unlimited disruption. The amount depends on the damage, applicable process and facts.
The parties should agree whether payment covers crops, grazing, infrastructure, access roads, loss of use, restoration or other measurable impacts. The agreement should state when payment is due and how disputes will be handled.
The farmer should also understand that demanding an unreasonable payment does not necessarily create a permanent veto over lawful mining. The miner should understand that offering a small amount of money does not automatically authorise entry or extinguish the farmer’s other rights.
Compensation and permission are related but not identical questions.
Environmental approval is part of the legal conversation
A miner cannot treat the farmer’s signature as a substitute for environmental compliance. Mining and processing activities may require environmental authorisation under Zimbabwe’s environmental framework. Depending on the project, the miner may need to address environmental impact assessment, water, waste, rehabilitation, pollution prevention and closure obligations.
The farmer should ask: Where will excavated material go? How will water be protected? What happens to open pits and shafts? Will chemicals be used? Who will rehabilitate the land if the operator disappears?
The miner should be equally practical. Environmental documents, rehabilitation plans and monitoring records are not only regulatory paperwork. They can help secure community confidence, attract finance and demonstrate that the operation is not being run as a temporary invasion of the farm.
If a dispute later reaches court or a regulator, the absence of environmental planning may weaken the miner’s position considerably.
What if the miner has already entered?
If mining has begun without proper engagement, the farmer should avoid taking matters into personal hands. The first steps should include documenting the entry, photographing damage, identifying the people and equipment involved, preserving messages and obtaining legal advice.
The farmer may need to approach the mining or environmental authorities, or a court. The remedy could involve regulated access, compensation, suspension of unlawful activity or an interdict.
The miner should not dismiss every objection as an attempt to extort money. The miner should stop potentially unlawful activities, verify the title and access position, and engage the farmer properly.
Continuing to dig while the legal position is disputed may increase exposure to compensation claims, regulatory action, criminal allegations or an order stopping the project.
A sensible farm-and-mine protocol
Before the first excavator arrives, both parties should insist on a document-based process. The miner should provide proof of the mining right, a location plan, the proposed work programme, environmental documents, the names of contractors and evidence of insurance or financial capacity where available.
The farmer should provide information about existing improvements, crops, livestock, water infrastructure, conservation areas, access restrictions and other land uses that may be affected.
The parties should then agree on the access route, working boundaries, safety procedures, compensation process, rehabilitation obligations and dispute-resolution mechanism. If they cannot agree, they should use the relevant statutory process or approach a court before anyone attempts to impose a solution physically.
This is not unnecessary delay. It is risk management.
Who controls the ground?
The short answer is that neither side controls everything.
The farmer’s ownership or occupation of the surface is important, but it does not automatically confer ownership of minerals that are regulated under mining law. The miner’s registered mining right is important, but it does not authorise reckless entry, violence, unlimited surface damage or disregard of environmental and safety obligations.
The law is designed to manage the collision of these interests through mining rights, access procedures, compensation, environmental regulation, administrative decisions and the courts. The answer is therefore not found in the loudest voice, the largest security team or the person who arrives with the most official-looking envelope.
It is found in verifying the documents, following the correct process and recording the rights and responsibilities of everyone involved.
I advised my colleague to tell the farmer that the security guards should not become the farm’s legal strategy. The miner, equally, should not bring the police as a substitute for a proper access process. The cows could continue grazing, but the humans needed to return to the documents.
Where a farm and a mining claim occupy the same legal space, the best outcome is not for one side to humiliate the other. It is for the miner to operate lawfully, the farmer to receive fair protection and compensation, and both parties to ensure that a dispute about minerals does not become a tragedy at the farm gate.
Namatirai Ruzvidzo is a registered Legal Practitioner, Conveyancer and Notary Public. She possesses over 15 years of experience specialising in Commercial law, Mining law and Property law. She practices in Avondale, Harare, under the Law Firm Ruzvidzo Legal Counsel. She can be reached on +263 784 228 534 or Email: [email protected], copying [email protected]
