Court declines to hear mining contractual row

Source: The Herald – Breaking news.

Fidelis Munyoro, Chief Court Reporter

Politician and businesswoman Omega Sipani Hungwe’s bid to stop a mining company from seizing machinery at her Mazowe farm has met a decisive legal roadblock.

The High Court ruled it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the dispute, directing the matter to arbitration as dictated by the binding contractual agreement between the parties.

At the heart of contention lies Clause 15 of the agreement between Cde Hungwe and Huwambo (Pvt) Ltd, a clause that unequivocally mandates that any disputes arising from the agreement be resolved through arbitration, in accordance with Zimbabwe’s arbitration laws.

The parties, through their contract, had explicitly agreed to resolve their grievances outside the courtroom, even providing a mechanism for appointing an arbitrator.

Should the parties fail to agree on an arbitrator, the President of the Commercial Arbitration Centre in Harare is empowered to appoint one.

Despite this clear provision, Cde Hungwe approached the High Court seeking an interdict to restrain Huwambo from removing machinery from 65 VA Great Riversdale Farm, Ward 22, Mazowe.

She sought to preserve the equipment as security for what she alleged were her legal entitlements, including compensation for Huwambo’s breach of contract.

Justice Maxwell Takuva, however, declined to hear the matter, citing the parties’ contractual choice to resolve disputes through arbitration.

“The parties should refer their disputes to arbitration in line with their intention expressed in their contract,” declared the judge.

The matter was struck off the roll for lack of jurisdiction, a legal closure that left no room for an recourse within the courts.

The genesis of the dispute traces back to October 26, 2023, when Cde Hungwe and Huwambo entered into a contract to extract minerals from the former’s Mazowe farm, leveraging a special grant awarded to her by the Ministry of Mines.

Under the agreement, Huwambo was obligated to commence mining operations within six months of the contract’s execution. However, Cde Hungwe alleged that Huwambo failed to fulfill its obligations, leaving her to shoulder significant financial losses incurred in reliance on the company’s promises.

The situation escalated in May of the following year when Huwambo allegedly descended upon the farm with the intent to seize machinery held by Cde Hungwe as security for unpaid compensation.

Cde Hungwe contended that this act was not only unlawful but a direct violation of her property rights under the contract. Seeking to prevent the removal of the equipment, she turned to the High Court for relief.

Huwambo, however, mounted a staunch opposition. Among the arsenal of preliminary objections, it raised, the decisive point was one of jurisdiction.

Justice Takuva agreed, noting that Clause 15 of the agreement was unambiguous in its intent to oust the jurisdiction of the courts.

By electing arbitration as their forum of choice, the parties had effectively barred the High Court from presiding over their dispute.

With the court’s ruling, the matter now goes for arbitration, where the contractually enshrined mechanisms will determine the outcome of the stand-off.

Justice Takuva’s decision stands as a potent reminder of the binding force of contractual provisions, particularly those that govern dispute resolution—a principle that anchors the integrity of commercial agreements and the rule of law.