The High Court has dismissed an urgent application by Chimurenga Mining Syndicate and two of its representatives seeking to stop their eviction from a mining claim in Nyanga and to nullify a writ of ejectment issued against them.

In a judgment delivered in Mutare, Justice Sijabuliso Siziba ruled that the urgent chamber application filed by Chimurenga Mining Syndicate, Nathan Tendai Manyuchi and Douglas Mahiya had no merit and ordered them to pay costs.

The applicants had approached the court seeking an interim order to stop the Sheriff of the High Court from evicting them from Chimurenga Mining Claim, Special Grant SG 10423, pending the determination of the matter. They also sought a final order declaring the writ of ejectment issued in favour of Nomatter Nyarugwe a legal nullity.

The dispute stems from a January 30, 2026 interim spoliation order granted by the High Court in favour of Nyarugwe, directing the applicants to restore peaceful and undisturbed possession of Ruenya Fortune 25 Mine. The applicants contested the order, arguing that they were not occupying that mine but were operating at their own claim under Chimurenga Mining Syndicate.

Following the ruling, the applicants appealed to the Supreme Court of Zimbabwe. However, the High Court later granted Nyarugwe leave to execute the order pending the appeal.

A writ of ejectment was subsequently issued by the registrar of the High Court of Zimbabwe on February 10 and served on the applicants the following day by the Sheriff.

In their urgent application filed on February 19, the applicants argued that the writ was irregular because the spoliation order did not specifically direct eviction. They also maintained that they were not occupying Nyarugwe’s mine but were operating within the coordinates of their own claim.

Nyarugwe opposed the application and raised several preliminary objections, including lack of urgency, the “dirty hands” doctrine, lack of locus standi, and alleged defects in the relief sought.

Justice Siziba dismissed all the preliminary objections, finding that the nine-day delay before filing the application did not remove the urgency of the matter since eviction was imminent.

However, the judge ruled that the application itself could not succeed because the court had already determined in the earlier proceedings that the applicants had dispossessed the first respondent of the mine.

The court held that once that determination had been made, it was functus officio on the issue of whether the applicants were operating at a different mine.

“The applicants, in simple terms, are coming back to tell this court that it made a wrong decision… Such attitude borders on contempt of this court,” Justice Siziba said.

The judge further ruled that a writ of ejectment was a lawful method of enforcing the spoliation order because restoring possession to the respondent required the applicants to vacate the mine.

Justice Siziba also noted that enforcement through a writ of ejectment was consistent with the High Court Rules 2021, which provide for execution of judgments involving the delivery of premises through such a process.

As a result, the court dismissed the application with costs but declined to award costs on a punitive legal practitioner-and-client scale.