The High Court has struck off the roll an urgent application involving a disputed US$284,400 worth of gold ore, after finding that the matter was riddled with unresolved factual disputes requiring oral evidence.
In a judgement delivered, Justice Ngoni Nduna dismissed an urgent spoliation application brought by Posse Solutions (Pvt) Ltd against Ponk Mining (Private) Limited and others, ruling that the case could not be properly determined on affidavit evidence alone.
The dispute centred on allegations by Posse Solutions that approximately 600 tonnes of gold ore, valued at US$284,400, were unlawfully seized from its mining site at Howard Farm in Matopo. The company claimed it had been in peaceful possession of the area under Special Grant No. 9929 and that the ore had been extracted and stockpiled in preparation for processing.
According to court papers, Posse Solutions alleged that on March 7, 2026, Ponk Mining and its employees forcibly entered the site and removed the ore using trucks. The applicant argued that the matter was urgent, citing the risk that the ore could be processed or disposed of, making recovery impossible.
However, Ponk Mining strongly denied the allegations, maintaining that it operated within its own registered claim, Dawn Star 5 Mine, and that it had only transported 42 tonnes of ore from its own operations. The company further stated that the material had already been milled, making restoration impossible.
Related Stories
In opposing the application, the respondents raised several preliminary objections, including claims of procedural defects, hearsay evidence, and the existence of material disputes of fact.
While the court dismissed the procedural objection relating to an incorrect form cited in the application, describing it as a minor clerical error that did not affect the substance of the case, it upheld the objection on material disputes.
Justice Nduna found that the central issue, whether 600 tonnes of ore had been removed from the applicant’s site or whether only 42 tonnes were lawfully extracted by the respondent—could not be resolved without further evidence.
"The Respondent’s denial of the quantity alleged by the Applicant creates a direct conflict on a material factual issue. The court is consequently faced with two irreconcilable versions, the Applicant’s allegation that 600 tonnes were taken and the Respondent’s assertion that only 42 tonnes of ore were moved from its own mine.
"In the absence of objective evidence demonstrating how the figure of 600 tonnes was determined, the court is left without a reliable basis upon which to resolve the discrepancy on the papers," the judge stated.
The court held that the lack of corroborating evidence left it in “a state of reasonable doubt,” making it impossible to determine the matter on the papers.
As a result, the application was struck off the roll, with costs awarded to the respondent on the ordinary scale.
Leave Comments