John Mpofu paid into a Mimosa home ownership scheme for years. After his death, his family lost the house and now faces a stark settlement gap.
The Mpofu family and Mimosa Mining Company are separated by US$14,500—and by sharply conflicting accounts of what happened to a Zvishavane home.
The family wants US$20,000 for Stand No. 3830, Lot 4, Highlands Extension. Mimosa says the property is worth US$5,500 and has offered that amount as the full settlement. Neither side has accepted the other’s position.
Behind the figures is a dispute that began with an employee trying to secure a home for his family. In April 2006, John Mpofu signed an agreement to buy the property from Mimosa. The contract included a death provision allowing the purchaser or his estate to keep paying monthly or settle the outstanding amount if the purchaser died before completing 10 years.
Mpofu died in January 2013. His widow says he had served the company for about nine years and nine months—close to, but short of, the contractual 10-year mark.
Instead of securing the family’s position, the clause became part of a legal and administrative fight. The High Court later recorded that Mimosa had started eviction proceedings in 2012. After Mpofu’s death, a default judgment was granted in July 2014, followed by a writ of execution. The family says the widow and her daughter were evicted in 2016.
A 2017 High Court judgment raised questions about the sale agreement, including whether it had been cancelled, but it did not finally decide the family’s ownership claim.
Government intervention did not end the dispute
In January 2018, Midlands Minister of State for Provincial Affairs O. Ncube wrote to Mimosa’s general manager, describing the handling of the matter as appearing to involve “social injustice”.
The minister highlighted the agreement’s death clause and recorded that Mimosa’s lawyers had offered the widow US$5,500 in return for surrendering the keys. He also said former Mimosa executive chairman Winston Chitando had instructed management to ensure the property remained with the widow.
The family’s continued fight suggests that intervention did not produce a lasting settlement.
Then the paperwork acquired another complication.
Who was the house being prepared for?
In 2022, Zvishavane Town Council told the Judicial Service Commission that its records showed Mimosa had allocated the stand to Harrison Kamanga. Council referred to a Mimosa letter dated 2 November 2016 and said a June 2018 rates clearance certificate indicated that lawyers were processing a transfer to Kamanga.
Council did not certify Kamanga as the registered owner. It recommended checking the position with Mimosa or the Registrar of Deeds. The available documents do not show how Kamanga became linked to the property or whether the proposed transfer was completed.
That gap matters. The family says it was still pursuing rights connected to Mpofu’s agreement, while the council record points to a later allocation and possible transfer involving another person.
Mimosa: The agreement was cancelled
In a 2 September 2026 letter to Janet Ndlovu, the executrix of Mpofu’s estate, Mimosa Corporate Secretary M. Gore said the agreement had been cancelled and the home repossessed.
Mimosa said the case was handled like similar matters under its Home Ownership Scheme. It said professional valuers appointed under the scheme assessed the property at US$5,500 and that comparable employees received the same refund.
The company said that if the family disagreed, it could ask the courts to independently review the valuation and determine the matter. Mimosa also rejected any suggestion that its shareholder, Impala, should deal with the claim, saying Mimosa is a separate legal entity.
The Day Star Investigations sought direct comment from Elizabeth Nerwande, Mimosa’s Head of Corporate Affairs, but had not received answers to its questions by publication.
A dispute still waiting for clarity
The widow was appointed executor of Mpofu’s estate by the Zvishavane Magistrates Court in January 2024. In July 2026, she again approached Mimosa, calling the taking of the house unlawful and demanding US$20,000. Her valuation has not been independently confirmed.
The central issues remain unanswered in the supplied record. Why was the agreement cancelled? Which valuation report supports US$5,500? And what became of the proposed allocation or transfer to Kamanga?
Mimosa says the matter followed its established scheme. The family says it lost a home its breadwinner spent years paying for. Until the competing records are tested, the offer and the claim remain separated by more than money: they represent two incompatible versions of the same decade-long story.
