BULAWAYO – Chinese firm ChinaZim International Minerals Corporation has been accused of “blatant and shameless collusion” by a judge in its attempts to dodge a long-standing $1 million debt owed to chrome miner, Zimasco. Justice Munamato Mutevedzi, sitting in Bulawayo, said the case formed part of a prolonged pattern in which companies operating under the ChinaZim banner repeatedly surfaced in court to block execution whenever Zimasco moved to recover its money. Zimasco, one of Zimbabwe’s largest ferrochrome producers, has been locked in litigation with ChinaZim since 2016 following the collapse of chrome mining and processing arrangements between the parties.
In 2016, Zimasco discovered that ChinaZim was conducting unauthorised mining, leading to the disappearance of 40,000 tonnes of ore. Legal battles ensued, with courts ordering ChinaZim to compensate Zimasco. An independent valuation in 2021/2022 estimated the value of the missing ore to be around $1 million, although Zimasco had previously argued it was over $1.5 million.
After securing judgement in the High Court in Harare, Zimasco instructed the Sheriff to attach mining equipment, vehicles, and chrome processing machinery to satisfy the debt. Each attempt at execution has, however, been met with fresh court applications. The court heard that after the June 2024 attachment, at least two separate interpleader claims were filed by ChinaZim-linked entities, all asserting ownership of the same property.
[paywall]
Those claims were dismissed in April 2025, with the High Court declaring the assets executable. Despite those rulings, ChinaZim International Smelting Company resurfaced with yet another claim relying on an alleged 2018 agreement of sale, in a renewed bid to block execution. Justice Mutevedzi rejected the claim outright, finding that the agreement was a fabricated document crafted after the attachment to frustrate creditors.
The judge noted that some vehicles listed in the document had not even been imported into Zimbabwe at the time of the alleged sale, while others remained registered in the judgement debtor’s name years later. He further found that the claimant and judgement debtor shared directors, shareholders, and business premises, describing the corporate relationship as indistinguishable. “The relationship smacks of incest,” the judge ruled.
[/paywall]
