Minister Chitando’s company Barrington resources l... (2024)

Minister Chitando’s company Barrington resources loses court battle over lithium mine

Philemon Jambaya

Mines and Mining Development Minister, Winston Chitando through his company, Barrington Resources, lost his application at the High Court to block Pulserate, a company linked to the Moti Group from mining lithium in Mutoko, Mashonaland East Province.

High Court Judge Justice Munamato Mutevedzi ruled against Barrington Resources.

Under Case number HC 8671/22, Barrington Resources made an application for the resolution of a boundary dispute relating to the boundaries of conflicting lithium claims owned by Barrington and Pulserate respectively, who both contend that their claim includes withinboundaries the Good Days Mine.

Chitando has been facing conflict of interest accusations in the matter following allegations that he owns Barrington Resources. Chitando is also linked to Hanzu Resources, another mining company.

Chitando, in his capacity as Minister of Mines and Mining Development,was cited as the third respondent and some of the accusations traded by the parties entangled the minister in the dispute in his personal capacity.

In a detailed judgementdelivered by High Court Judge Justice Mutevedzi dated June 27 and July 21, 2023, it was contended that the coordinates which Barrington Resources claimed are the correct ones cannot be proved without showing the court that due process was followed in their pegging.

The most critical issue, according to court documents, was whether the applicant Barrington Resources was the prior pegger of the mining location in dispute.

The sole material dispute of fact which the court is capable of resolving on the papers is who between the contesting parties is the prior pegger. Its resolution can be dispositive of the application.

Barrington, in its application, claims it acquired the mining rights in 2012, but the company was only incorporated in 2013 according to its registration number.

There is no pre-incorporation contract, according to the court papers to make the acquisition legal as required in law.

“If there isn’t a pre-incorporation contract, then the applicant’s claim to be the owner of the mining blocks in question can only be a fraudulent transaction,” reads part of the documents.

Pulserate, according to the court papers, said it had carried out necessary due diligence before the acquisition of the mining blocks in question.

These investigations included obtaining information from the second respondent (the Mines Ministry) who confirmed to it that at the time the fifth respondent (Hope Mine syndicate) pegged the blocks the mining location was open for pegging.

According to the court documents, due process was followed by the fifth respondent while Barrington did not submit evidence in its application to support its allegation that it was the prior pegger of the claim in question.

Pulserate laid into Chitando by alleging that his overbearing influence was evident throughout as seen by the illegal procurement of its documents kept at the Ministry of Mines offices.

Pulserate stated that it is Barrington itself seeking to fraudulently take over its Good Days K claim citing that the arrangement between Chitando and Barrington Resources was illegal.

Pulserate had referred to press reports which contained these allegations which the Minister did not deny.

The allegation regarding the incorporation status of Barrington was made right from the start by Pulserate.

Using bare knuckles, the first respondent (Pulserate) did not only accuse the applicant of approaching the court with dirty hands but that it literally “dripped raw sewage”.

Pulserate alleged that the applicant (Barrington Resources) is a company owned by Chitando citing that this contravened section 364 of the Mines and Minerals Act, which states that such Minister cannot directly or indirectly be involved in any mining business.

The situation, according to the court documents was compounded by Chitando who chose to completely ignore the application and even failed to respond in the case of a personal attack on him.

Barrington, despite the challenge regarding its incorporation, remained mute on the issue and did not refute the allegation that it was incorporated in 2013 as shown by its registration number.

It equally did not disown that registration number.

According to the judgement, the court found that Barrington Resources had not been incorporated in 2012 and its purported acquisition of the mining rights from Andrew Zuze was a nullity in law.

Barrington's failure to answer to the allegations by Pulserate about their incorporation and their attempt to shift the onus was nothing more than an admission by Barrington that there is no pre-incorporation contract when they purportedly acquired the mining rights in 2012.

Barrington also tacitly admitted a failure to comply with all other requirements that would have validated its transaction with Zuze.

Its acquisition of the mining rights was therefore defective at the very best and a nullity at worst.

According to the court papers, two entities can have mining certificates for the same mining location, and both can be deemed a pegger to the mining location.

To determine the rightful pegger one has to consider prior peggers, where the pegger has to ensure their mining rights are duly maintained, which means to abide by all the conditions for your mining rights not to be revoked.

According to the judgement, Barrington could not have properly acquired the mining rights from Zuze in 2012 as it was before their incorporation as it could not perform juristic acts.

In turn, if it acquired the claim in 2017Barrington cannot be considered the prior pegger as Pulserate’s predecessor had acquired the mining rights in 2016 before Barrington and had adhered to all the conditions of the mining rights before selling the mining rights to Pulserate.

Justice Mutevedzi, therefore, ordered that Barrington is not the prior pegger of the mining location under contention.

In the circ*mstances it is ordered that; The application be and is hereby dismissed in its entirety. The applicant shall pay the first respondent’s costs,” Justice Mutevedzi ordered.