The Supreme Court of Zimbabwe has dismissed an attraction by Buchwa Iron Ore Mining Company (Pvt) Ltd, upholding a decrease courtroom ruling that rejected the corporate’s declare to possession of a stockpile of iron ore fines.

The attraction centred on whether or not the corporate had confirmed its possession of the iron ore fines, which have been offered by public sale to Optimax Mining Resources (Pvt) Ltd in 2016.

In a judgment delivered by Justice Elizabeth Gwaunza, the Supreme Court held that the corporate had failed to supply enough proof to show its possession of the disputed property.

The courtroom famous that the corporate had admitted to quickly transferring possession of the property to the Ministry of Industry and Commerce, however had failed to supply any documentation or proof to assist its declare that the possession had reverted again to it.

The Supreme Court additionally criticized the corporate for failing to hitch different related events to the transaction, together with the Minerals Marketing Corporation of Zimbabwe (MMCZ) and the Ministry of Industry and Commerce, which might have offered essential proof to assist or refute the corporate’s claims.

The choose cited the latest case of Dube v Murehwa SC 68/21 at p10, the place the courtroom commented:

“The legislation is obvious that bald and unsubstantiated allegations don’t set up a litigant’s purported or introduced place. See Akhtar v Minister of Public Commission SC 173/97.

“The court a quo’s decision cannot therefore be faulted because the evidence placed before it established on a balance of probabilities that the first respondent had rights emanating from the lease agreement with the second respondent whilst the appellant only made bare allegations which were not sufficient to prove the existence of any material disputes of facts (my emphasis).”

In the same vein, in VanHoogstraten v Nelomwe SC 4/20 it was acknowledged as follows at pages 6 – 7:

“The high quality of the appellant’s proof was so poor that the trial courtroom can’t be faulted for rejecting it and embracing that of the respondents.

“The appellant has himself to thank for that outcome having done nothing to endear himself in the eyes of the court,” learn a part of the judgement.

Accordingly, Justice Gwaunza dominated that the appellant did not show the case that it introduced earlier than the courtroom, primarily because of the lack of enough and credible proof to assist its declare to possession of the disputed property.

“The appeal be and is hereby dismissed with costs,” Justice Gwaunza acknowledged.

The courtroom’s resolution was unanimous, with Justices Susan Mavangira and George Chiweshe concurring with Justice Gwaunza’s judgment.

The ruling brings an finish to the long-standing dispute over the possession of the iron ore fines and confirms the sale of the property to Optimax Mining Resources (Pvt) Ltd as legitimate.