Zimbabwe’s mining dispute-resolution system is confronting an uncomfortable contradiction: Provincial Mining Directors (PMDs) are exercising the judicial powers of Mining Commissioners, yet the way some proceedings are conducted can resemble administrative meetings rather than hearings before a court, 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, the officer is not simply facilitating a meeting between competing parties. The officer is exercising a statutory judicial function, with the power to make a determination that can have significant consequences for mining rights and operations.
Zimbabwean courts have repeatedly set aside ex parte determinations, stop-orders and administrative directions issued by Provincial Mining Directors or Mining Commissioners where proceedings have been affected by serious procedural irregularities, denial of the right to be heard (audi alteram partem), or breaches of the principles of natural justice.
Recent judgments have therefore exposed a question that goes beyond individual mining disputes: when a PMD sits to determine a dispute, is the process being conducted as a court of law or as an administrative meeting?
The issue 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, the 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] gives the Mining Commissioner powers to hold a court and determine mining disputes.
Section 346 provides for the examination of witnesses on oath and the taking down of their evidence in writing. Section 360 further provides that the procedure in the Mining Commissioner’s court should, so far as practicable, accord with the law and rules governing civil proceedings in magistrates’ courts.
The statutory language matters.
It establishes a dispute-resolution mechanism with judicial characteristics, rather than a conventional administrative consultation.
The courts have reinforced that position.
In Stonezim Granite Private Limited v Provincial Mining Director, Mashonaland East and Another, the Supreme Court considered the position of the PMD and recognised that a Provincial Mining Director can exercise the functions and powers of a Mining Commissioner where those powers have been lawfully delegated by the Secretary responsible for mines.
That judgment is important because it addresses the apparent tension between the statutory reference to a Mining Commissioner and the present administrative structure in which PMDs exercise those functions.
The title may be different.
The function, when exercised under the relevant delegation, remains judicial.
That means the procedural obligations attached to that function cannot simply disappear because the officer is operating from a provincial mining office rather than a conventional courtroom.
The High Court Has Already Seen the Problem
The concern is not theoretical.
In Sandawana Mines (Private) Limited v Ndhlovu N.O. and Another, the High Court dealt with the importance of maintaining a proper record in proceedings before the Mining Commissioner.
The court’s reasoning underscores a basic principle of adjudication: where an official exercises judicial power, there must be a reliable record of what occurred.
That record enables an appellate or review court to determine whether the proceedings were properly conducted and whether the decision was supported by the evidence and procedure.
This is particularly important in mining disputes because the decisions can have substantial financial consequences.
A mining dispute cannot be reduced to a conversation that took place in an office, followed by a conclusion reached by an official.
There has to be a process capable of being examined.
Big Valley and the Limits of Delegated Authority
The issue became even more pronounced in Big Valley Masters (Private) Limited v Provincial Mining Director, Midlands Province N.O. and Wilson Mhuri.
The case concerned a mining dispute in which the PMD did not personally conduct the relevant proceedings. Officials from his office undertook inquiries and dealt with aspects of the dispute before the PMD ultimately issued a determination.
The High Court set that determination aside.
The judgment went to the heart of delegated judicial authority.
A PMD who has been delegated judicial powers cannot simply pass those powers to another officer and later make the final determination. The person vested with the authority must exercise that authority.
The court’s reasoning demonstrates why the distinction between an administrative meeting and a judicial hearing matters.
An administrator can receive a report from a subordinate and act on it.
A judicial officer cannot necessarily do the same where the law requires that officer to personally hear and determine the dispute.
The proceedings must be conducted by the person exercising the judicial authority.
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.
But it raises an important institutional question: if PMDs are exercising judicial powers, are they being adequately trained and supported to perform those functions as judicial officers?
The question becomes even more important in light of recent judgments.
A person sitting in a judicial capacity must understand that the process is as important as the conclusion.
It is not enough to gather the parties in a room, hear competing versions of events and announce a decision.
The parties must be afforded a proper opportunity to present their cases. Evidence must be handled properly. The proceedings must be recorded. The presiding officer must remain within the limits of the authority conferred by law. And the final determination must be based on a process that can withstand scrutiny.
The concern is also being raised from within the mining and project-management space.
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 goes to the heart of 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 a judicial proceeding, it is much more than that.
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 a proper record, a superior court reviewing the decision is left with an incomplete picture.
That is why the record of proceedings before a Mining Commissioner cannot be regarded as an optional administrative exercise.
Section 346 expressly contemplates the recording of evidence, while section 360 links the procedure of the Mining Commissioner’s court, so far as practicable, to magistrates’ court civil procedure.
The system therefore requires procedural discipline.
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 not an abstract legal principle in mining.
It can determine whether a mining operation continues or stops.
A stop-order, boundary determination or other directive can have immediate consequences for production, exploration, equipment deployment, employment and investment.
Where such a decision is made without giving an affected party a proper opportunity to respond, the decision may become vulnerable to review.
The same applies where a dispute is determined on information that one party has not had an opportunity to challenge.
For a sector built around long-term capital commitments and mineral rights, procedural certainty is therefore part 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 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 supposed to reduce that uncertainty.
If a determination is later declared a nullity or set aside because of a jurisdictional or procedural defect, the dispute does not necessarily end. The parties may have to return to the beginning, while uncertainty surrounding the mining ground continues.
That is costly for everyone.
Training PMDs Is No Longer Optional
If PMDs are expected to exercise delegated judicial functions, then judicial and procedural training should form part of the institutional framework.
The Ministry of Mines and Mining Development should consider a structured programme covering the Mines and Minerals Act, 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.
The lesson from Big Valley Masters is clear: delegated judicial authority cannot simply be passed down the administrative hierarchy.
The officer exercising the authority must understand where that authority begins and where it ends.
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 process from the filing of a complaint to the issuing of a determination.
It could provide guidance on notices, preliminary directions, hearings, evidence, witnesses, site inspections, records and judgments.
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.
This would not require PMD offices to become conventional courts.
It would simply ensure that when a PMD sits in a judicial capacity, the process follows the standards expected of a court.
Parliament Has a Role Too
There is also a legislative issue that cannot be ignored.
The existing Mines and Minerals Act continues to use the statutory terminology of Mining Commissioners, while the mining administration operates through Provincial Mining Directors exercising delegated functions.
The Supreme Court has provided important guidance on how that delegation operates.
However, the continuing evolution of the mining administration makes statutory clarity increasingly important.
Future legislation should clearly identify the officer responsible for mining dispute adjudication, the source and limits of that authority, the extent to which functions may be delegated, the prohibition against sub-delegating judicial authority and the procedures governing hearings and records.
Clear legislation would reduce unnecessary jurisdictional disputes and provide greater certainty to mining rights holders.
A Court Cannot Be Run Like a Meeting
The fundamental issue is simple.
A provincial mining office can conduct meetings.
It can conduct inspections.
It can receive reports.
It can consult miners, companies, communities and other stakeholders.
But when a PMD exercises delegated Mining Commissioner powers to determine a dispute, the character of the function changes.
The officer is adjudicating.
That requires a different standard of procedure.
Recent judgments have demonstrated the consequences when that standard is not met. Stonezim Granite confirms the legal basis for PMDs exercising delegated Mining Commissioner powers. Sandawana highlights the importance of a proper record. Big Valley Masters demonstrates that a PMD cannot simply delegate the judicial hearing to subordinate officials and then determine the dispute.
The wider jurisprudence on ex parte decisions, stop-orders, natural justice and the right to be heard reinforces the same principle: statutory authority does not exempt a decision-maker from procedural fairness.
These cases should not be viewed merely as isolated litigation involving individual mining claims.
They provide guidance for the entire mining administration.
The question facing the Ministry is therefore not whether PMDs should exercise these functions.
They already do, where the necessary delegation exists.
The more important question is whether the institutional framework around them is adequate for the responsibility they carry.
If a PMD sits to determine a mining dispute, the proceeding must be treated as a court proceeding.
Not because the officer wears a judicial title.
Not because the hearing takes place in a courtroom.
But because the law gives the officer a judicial function.
PMDs may operate from mining offices. But when they sit as courts, they cannot operate by meeting-room rules.
