The High Court has strongly criticised businessmen John Farley Pietersen and Peter Mark Johnstone over their conduct in a dispute involving the Royal Family gold mining claims in Filabusi, describing their actions as “reprehensible” and an abuse of court processes.
The judgment has also brought attention to allegations of illegal gold mining, millions of dollars in losses and possible environmental violations involving the two businessmen and Generous Resources.
All Aflame Marketing (Private) Limited, which the court confirmed as the lawful owner of the Royal Family mining claims, alleges that mining continued despite earlier court orders stopping the activities.
The company claims that gold worth tens of millions of US dollars was extracted and processed without its permission, causing it major financial losses.
There are also questions about a large heap-leach gold processing facility reportedly linked to Generous Resources and Chinese businessman Zuo Wenzhong, particularly whether the operation had the required Environmental Management Agency (EMA) approval.
If proven, the allegations could point to serious failures in enforcing mining laws, protecting the environment and respecting court orders.
MINING ALLEGEDLY CONTINUED AFTER COURT ORDERS
One of the main issues in the dispute is whether mining continued after the High Court ordered the parties to stop operations.
In June 2026, Justice Tawanda Chitapi issued provisional orders barring Pietersen, Johnstone and people working through them from claiming to be directors of All Aflame Marketing or carrying out mining activities at the Royal Family claims while the case was still before the courts.
The orders prohibited gold extraction, ore processing and the removal of minerals from the property.
They also covered employees, contractors, agents, business partners and anyone claiming mining rights through the two businessmen.
However, allegations later emerged that mining continued despite the court orders.
On June 26, 2026, ZimTimes reported that footage allegedly taken at the mine appeared to show mining activities continuing after the court had issued its order.
Although the footage still requires independent verification, All Aflame says the parties involved ignored the court’s instructions and continued operating at the mine.
Establishing whether the orders were violated will require an examination of mining records, photographs, site inspections and other evidence.
If a breach is proven, those responsible could face further legal action, including contempt of court proceedings.
GENEROUS RESOURCES AND THE HEAP-LEACH FACILITY
Another issue involves a large gold processing facility reportedly linked to Generous Resources and Chinese businessman Zuo Wenzhong.
Heap leaching is a gold recovery method in which ore is placed on specially prepared ground and treated with chemical solutions to extract gold.
The process requires special infrastructure, including prepared surfaces, chemical storage and circulation systems, and facilities to prevent harmful substances from escaping into the environment.
The reported size of the facility at Royal Family has therefore become an important part of the dispute.
The complainants say the activities went beyond small-scale mining and involved a much larger gold extraction and processing operation.
However, the exact size of the facility, the amount of ore processed, how long it operated and how much gold was recovered have not yet been independently established.
These details will help determine how much money may have been generated from the disputed mining activities and whether the operation followed the law.
The High Court has reaffirmed All Aflame’s position as the lawful holder of the mining claims, including against those claiming rights through Pietersen.
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN ALLEGED GOLD LOSSES
All Aflame claims that unauthorised mining and gold processing caused financial losses running into tens of millions of US dollars.
The company says it lost valuable gold resources and income that should have come from its mining claims.
The alleged losses could also include the depletion of gold deposits, lost business opportunities, disruption of lawful mining activities and the cost of repairing possible environmental damage.
However, the amount claimed has not yet been independently confirmed or awarded by a court.
To establish the actual losses, investigators would need to examine how much ore was extracted, its gold content, the amount recovered and the quantity of gold produced.
They would also need to establish where the gold was sold, who bought it and who received the money.
This information would help determine whether gold belonging to the lawful claim holder was extracted and sold without its permission.
EMA APPROVALS UNDER QUESTION
The dispute has also raised concerns about whether the mining activities followed Zimbabwe’s environmental laws.
All Aflame alleges that Pietersen, Johnstone and Generous Resources did not have the required EMA environmental approval for the mining and processing operations.
Under the Environmental Management Act \[Chapter 20:27\], certain projects, including mining developments, must undergo environmental assessments and obtain the necessary approval before operations begin.
These requirements are important for heap-leach mining because chemicals used in the process can pollute the soil and water if they are not properly handled.
Where cyanide-based solutions are used, proper storage, containment and safety measures are needed to prevent environmental damage.
If it is confirmed that the operation did not have the required environmental certificate, questions could arise over whether it was operating legally.
All Aflame has also raised concerns about possible environmental damage caused by the activities.
However, the absence of EMA approval and the extent of any environmental damage have not yet been independently confirmed.
EMA would need to clarify whether it issued an environmental certificate for the Royal Family operation, which company received it and what activities it covered.
The agency would also need to explain whether it inspected the site, received complaints or took any action over the disputed operations.
HIGH COURT REJECTS DISPUTED COMPANY TAKEOVER
The mining allegations have come to light alongside strong criticism from the High Court over attempts by Pietersen and Johnstone to take control of All Aflame Marketing.
The court rejected a default judgment that the two businessmen had used to claim majority shareholding rights and remove David Peter Easterbrook and Allan Brent Dolan as company directors.
According to the judgment, legal documents were served at an address that the defendants allegedly knew was no longer being used by the opposing parties.
The judge criticised their conduct, saying:
“Their reprehensible conduct ought to be frowned upon. As I found in HCH 2600/26, they clearly snatched at judgment and unreasonably sought to cling to it.”
The judge also rejected their argument that the address used was still the company’s official address for receiving legal documents.
“Not only have they unreasonably sought to cling to a judgment obtained in these circumstances, but their argument that it was the domicilium was completely unmerited and, in fact, dishonest,” the judgment reads.
The court also questioned the different explanations given by the defendants over the removal of Easterbrook and Dolan.
At first, they relied on company registration documents showing that the two directors had resigned on May 13, 2026.
They later changed their explanation, arguing that the directors had been removed through a resolution passed by majority shareholders.
However, the judge said they had failed to provide evidence showing that the correct legal procedures had been followed.
“They did not stop there, they also abandoned their own CR 6, which falsely states that the first and second applicants resigned on 13 May 2026. They then claimed that they passed a resolution as majority shareholders to remove them. Yet they placed nothing before the court to establish the lawful process,” the judge said.
In another strong statement, the court described their defence as an abuse of the judicial process.
“The pursuit of their frivolous defence was a blatant abuse of the court process. All they purportedly did in the comfort of their offices stand on sand and are clear legal nullities.”
The ruling is a major setback for the disputed takeover and confirms All Aflame’s legal position in the company.
However, the court’s findings on the company takeover should be separated from the allegations of continued mining, financial losses and environmental violations, which still require further investigation.
SHERIFF AUTHORISED TO EVICT OCCUPANTS
The High Court also confirmed that All Aflame Marketing is the sole lawful holder of the Royal Family mining claims in Filabusi.
The court ruled that Pietersen had no legal right to conduct mining activities outside the terms of the joint venture agreement.
It ordered Pietersen and everyone claiming rights through him to immediately stop all mining and related activities on the company’s claims.
The Sheriff of Zimbabwe, or a lawful deputy, was authorised to remove anyone covered by the order who refuses to leave the property.
The ruling gives All Aflame a legal basis to regain control of the mine and investigate the alleged extraction and processing of its gold resources.
FILABUSI MINING ACTIVITIES UNDER SPOTLIGHT
The Royal Family dispute has now grown beyond a disagreement between business partners.
It has raised questions about the protection of mining rights, respect for court orders, environmental protection and the ability of authorities to monitor mining operations.
The allegations that mining continued despite an earlier court order have raised concerns about whether the law was properly enforced.
There are also questions about how a large gold processing facility could allegedly operate without the required environmental approval.
Although there is no court finding in the available information showing that public officials deliberately helped the alleged activities, the case raises questions about whether regulators and law enforcement agencies did enough to monitor the mine.
All Aflame’s immediate priority is to regain control of its claims and establish the full extent of the alleged financial and environmental damage.
This may require independent mining assessments, financial audits, gold production records and environmental inspections.
Authorities may also need to investigate whether the disputed operations complied with Zimbabwe’s mining and environmental laws.
QUESTIONS THAT NEED ANSWERS
Although the High Court has ruled on the disputed company takeover, several questions about the mining activities remain unanswered.
Did mining continue after the June 2026 court order? How much ore was extracted and processed? Did the heap-leach facility have the required environmental approval? How much gold was recovered, and where did the money go?
EMA’s response will also be important in establishing whether the operation complied with environmental regulations.
These questions will require documentary evidence, regulatory investigations and, where necessary, further court proceedings.
For Pietersen and Johnstone, the judgment represents a major legal setback after the court rejected their attempts to take control of All Aflame Marketing.
For Generous Resources and other parties claiming rights through Pietersen, the ruling raises questions about their continued occupation and authority to operate at the mine.
The next step will be to ensure that the court order is enforced and that the separate allegations of gold losses and environmental damage are properly investigated.
The Royal Family dispute is now about more than ownership of a gold mine. It is also about whether mining laws, environmental regulations and court orders are being respected and enforced in Zimbabwe.
