The High Court has ordered the restoration of mining rights to Nomatter Nyarugwe, the registered owner of a gold mining claim in Nyanga, following a dispute with Chimurenga Mining Syndicate, Nathan Manyuchi, Douglas Mahiya, and the Provincial Mining Director.
Justice Isaac Muzenza, presiding in Mutare, ruled in favour of Nyarugwe after hearing an urgent chamber application, granting a mandamus order requiring the first and third respondents, as well as their agents, to immediately restore “peaceful and undisturbed possession” of the mining claim known as Reunya Fortune 25.
The applicant, Nyarugwe, has held the claim since October 1994 and has operated under a valid registration certificate issued in August 2023, which remains effective until October 2026. Nyarugwe has complied with all regulatory requirements, including selling gold bullion to Fidelity Gold Refinery, with the latest delivery recorded on 19 January 2026.
According to the court documents, the first and third respondents, holders of a special mining grant issued in October 2025, occupied Nyarugwe’s mining shafts in August 2025 and allegedly chased away his employees. Efforts by Nyarugwe to resolve the matter through the Provincial Mining Director and law enforcement did not prevent further alleged incursions, including the removal of ore from his claim.
Related Stories
In their defence, the respondents argued that the dispute involved boundaries and that a Surveyor-General’s report was necessary. They claimed their activities were within the area covered by their special grant.
Justice Muzenza rejected these arguments, noting that Nyarugwe had maintained “peaceful and undisturbed possession” of the claim for over three decades and that the respondents had dispossessed him without a court order. The court emphasized that spoliation law focuses on possession rather than ownership disputes or boundary claims.
“The applicant has managed to prove that he was in peaceful and undisturbed possession of the mining shafts and claims which the first to third respondents deprived him of,” the judgement states.
The court ordered that costs be paid by the first to third respondents.
Leave Comments