A controversial attempt by Navid Incorporated (Pvt) Ltd to secure an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Certificate for the disputed Kitsiyatota mining area has collapsed after the company withdrew two High Court applications seeking to have its project declared approved “by operation of law.”
The withdrawals, made today, Monday, 27 July 2026, effectively ended a legal strategy that legal observers say was ill conceived and became increasingly difficult to sustain after Environmental Management Agency (EMA) correspondence emerged confirming that the Agency had responded to Navid’s application within the statutory period.
EMA Did Respond
Navid’s case was founded on the claim that EMA had failed to communicate a decision within the 60-day period prescribed by section 100(1) of the Environmental Management Act.
However, EMA wrote to Navid on 2 June 2026 advising that its Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Report could not proceed because essential information remained outstanding, including an approved Siting of Works Plan for more than 200 artisanal mining operations and proof of consultations with ZESA, GMB and NRZ.
EMA further advised that any resubmission would constitute a fresh application attracting a new statutory period and expressly directed Navid not to commence mining until an EIA Certificate had been issued. The letter, stamped received on 4 June 2026, was issued within the statutory timeframe relied upon by Navid.
Prohibition Notice Remains
On 6 July 2026, EMA issued a prohibition notice confirming that Navid remained legally prohibited from undertaking mining activities, including dewatering and ore extraction, because the required information had not been provided. The notice warned that continued activities could attract enforcement action.
Court Proceedings Withdrawn
Despite EMA’s position, Navid instituted High Court Case No. HCH3483/26, seeking a declaration that its EIA had been approved by operation of law and an order compelling EMA to issue an EIA Certificate. It subsequently filed High Court Case No. HCH3501/26, seeking to restrain EMA from treating its operations as unlawful pending determination of the declaratory application.
Botha Gold Mine later applied to be joined to the proceedings under High Court Case No. HCH3562/26, arguing that the relief sought directly affected its operations and legal interests in the disputed area, ownership of which remains before the High Court under Case No. HCH1051/26.
Before any judgment could be delivered, Navid withdrew both HCH3483/26 and HCH3501/26.
The withdrawals leave EMA’s prohibition notice intact and do not alter the legal requirement that mining may only proceed under a valid EIA Certificate.
No EIA Means No Mining
Under the Environmental Management Act and Statutory Instrument 7 of 2007, mining operations require a valid Environmental Impact Assessment Certificate before they may lawfully commence.
As matters presently stand:
- Navid Incorporated does not possess an EIA covering the disputed area.
- Mutapa Gold Resources/Freda Rebecca Gold Mine also do not possess an EIA covering the disputed area.
Broader Dispute
The EIA litigation forms part of the wider dispute between Botha Gold Mine and Freda Rebecca Gold Mine over ownership and mining rights in the Kitsiyatota area, which remains before the High Court.
With both High Court applications now withdrawn and EMA’s prohibition notice remaining in force, the legal position appears unchanged. Until a valid EIA Certificate is lawfully issued for the disputed area, mining operations remain subject to the requirements of the Environmental Management Act while the ownership dispute continues before the High Court.
Efforts to obtain comment from both Navid Incorporated and Side Electrical (Pvt) Ltd t/a Botha Gold Mine prior to publication were unsuccessful. Representatives at Navid Incorporated’s Bindura office declined to comment, while telephone calls to Botha Gold Mine went unanswered at the time of publication.