Botha Mine Court Papers Link Farai Matsika to Controversial Consent Order

Harare, Zimbabwe | A fresh legal storm has erupted around Botha Mine after a youth empowerment organisation approached the High Court alleging that a 2018 consent order was fraudulently concealed for years, resulting in the group losing control of a lucrative 60 percent profit share from the mining operation.

Court papers filed under case number HCH587/25 show that Zimbabwe Empowered Youth United in Major Economics Sector Acceleration (ZIYUMESA) is seeking the rescission of a consent order granted under HC 11047/18. The organisation argues that the agreement was allegedly engineered without the knowledge or approval of its parent body.

According to affidavits before the court, ZIYUMESA claims several former directors linked to Botha Mine — Gift Kanosvamhira, Normsa Patience Hove, Knowledge Munetsi and Simbarashe Nyenza — broke ranks with the organisation before 2018 and stopped remitting proceeds due to the youth group from mining operations.

The application, supported by a founding affidavit from Tariro Andrew Chidavayenzi, states that ZIYUMESA initially held a 60 percent profit entitlement in Side Electrical (Private) Limited, the company associated with the mine. The remaining 40 percent was reportedly reserved for operational costs, with major resolutions requiring joint board approval.

The dispute is said to have resurfaced in 2022 after former company secretary Phathisile Paula Ncube allegedly approached ZIYUMESA while pursuing unpaid salaries in a separate labour matter cited as HCHC05/22.

In her affidavit, now attached to the ongoing High Court application, Ncube claims the youth organisation’s shareholding and proceeds from Botha Mine were redirected through a network of entities and individuals linked to the respondents.

Court documents referenced in the application mention businessman Farai Matsika and companies allegedly associated with him, including FaraMatsi, as having benefited from proceeds tied to the disputed mining blocks. ZIYUMESA argues that despite the reduction of its allocation to 10 percent under the consent order, it has not received any corresponding payouts.

Affidavits filed by Planet Chinyemba and Valentine Masimbe reportedly support the organisation’s claims.

The application further alleges that the respondents engaged Kajokoto and Company to represent interests linked to the dispute without notifying ZIYUMESA’s recognised legal representatives, Mutumbwa Mugabe, or obtaining approval from the wider membership.

ZIYUMESA contends that the legal manoeuvre resulted in a consent order that drastically reduced the organisation’s stake in the mining venture.

Additional documents attached to the case reportedly provide technical details relating to the ownership structure of the mine. Certificates of registration for Botha 1 to 4 allegedly indicate that the claims originated from the conversion of a larger mining block identified as 41158BM.

According to the court papers, the original 31-hectare base metal block was later subdivided into four smaller gold reef claims registered as Botha 1, Botha 2, Botha 3 and Botha 4.

The applicant also relies on what it describes as a signed joint venture agreement in which Side Electricals acknowledged ownership of only the original 31-hectare block under 41158BM, arguing that there was no lawful basis for further alterations through special grant surveys.

On the delay in bringing the rescission application, Chidavayenzi told the court the organisation only became fully aware of the alleged irregularities years later and had to secure independent funding to engage its current lawyers, Maringe and Kwaramba.

“The delay in filing the present application is not by design,” reads part of the affidavit.

“The Applicant will suffer prejudice if this application is denied because, as it stands now, the Applicant no longer has control over its own brain child.”

Contacted for comment, Farai Matsika said he could not discuss matters currently before the courts.

A representative from Kajokoto and Company also declined to comment in detail, saying the matter had been handled within the firm but he could not immediately recall the legal practitioner responsible.