SYDNEY KAWADZA
THE Zimbabwean government has approved the terms of a settlement agreement to resolve the long-standing dispute over a packet of diamonds belonging to the London Stock Exchange (LSE)-listed Vast Resources, the Zimbabwe Independent has learnt.
Vast, a multi-resource operation with a footprint in Zimbabwe, has been battling to get back a 129 400 carats diamond parcel that has been held at the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe (RBZ) for over a decade.
The gems were surrendered as evidence that the mining firm had exploited diamonds on claims previously owned by De Beers, which left the diamond fields in 2006, claiming it had failed to find viable reserves, after a decade of exploration.
Following a legal deadlock, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of Vast.
However, in its latest corporate update issued this week, the AIM-listed mining company, announced that the Attorney-General’s (AG) Office in Zimbabwe had approved the terms of a settlement agreement relating to the historic claim.
The report also revealed that the AG’s Office had recommended this to the relevant governmental institution for signature in order to resolve this long-standing matter.
- Zim loses legal tussle over diamonds
- Vast Resources boss jets in to recover seized diamonds
- Vast diamonds deal to sail through after RBZ action
- Miner seeks to escalate diamond dispute
Keep Reading
“Accordingly, the fully executed settlement agreement is currently awaited to enable the company to complete the process of recovery.
“Shareholders will be advised of further developments, but shareholders are also reminded that whilst the board remains confident, there can be no guarantee of a successful outcome,” the company said.
Impeccable government sources also told the Independent that Attorney General Virginia Mabhiza was out of Zimbabwe settling various cases involving Zimbabwe.
In July last year, Vast wrote to Zimbabwe’s AG, through Titan Law, its Harare-based legal counsel, expressing misgivings about the government’s attitude over the deadlock.
Titan Law said under the settlement deal, Vast agreed to withdraw legal challenges, as it prepared to sign a new mining agreement with the Ministry of Mines and Mining Development.
“You may not have been privy to these discussions, which are documented and reported in the public media. But they are precisely the reason our client withdrew its appeal in September of 2019,” Titan Law senior partner Gerald Mlotshwa said in the letter.
“Having withdrawn its appeal based on the government’s representations, the agreement was nonetheless not consummated at all. Whilst at all times looking promising, these settlement discussions have failed at the last hurdle, leaving our client with three options to pursue: Reinstating its appeal before the Supreme Court of Zimbabwe regarding Justice (Charles) Hungwe’s rescission judgment, simply seeking an order from the High Court regarding the return of its diamonds in the absence of a forfeiture order concerning the same,” he noted.
Mlotshwa said Vast was considering pursuing a damages claim in Zimbabwean or international courts.
“Given the refusal by the RBZ to obey an order of the High Court in circumstances where all parties agreed that there are no longer any appeals pending before the Supreme Court ... our client, a public listed company (may) pursue a more visible and aggressive approach in enforcing its rights whether at High Court or Supreme Court level,” he said.
Mlotshwa said Vast had instructed them that unless there were serious attempts to settle the matter, they would have no option but to take action against the government.
He said Vast could be forced to inform the investing public, as it is obliged to by LSE listing rules and regulations, that even though it is in possession of a High Court order, the RBZ was refusing to obey it.
“(Vast will) institute the necessary contempt of court processes against those persons in wilful contempt of the High Court order, take all such steps as shall be necessary to reinstate its appeal against Justice Hungwe’s rescission judgment in the Supreme Court, pursue such other legal action as shall be necessary for international tribunals as ancillary or in consequence of the foregoing,” Mlotshwa said.
