The High Court has declined to hear a suit by Tata Chemicals Magadi Limited, which sought to challenge the government’s decision to suspend its mining operations, saying it should have been filed before the Environment and Land Court (ELC).
The court held that disputes relating to minerals and mining are closely linked to land use and the environment.
‘Minerals and mines are intertwined with land and environment. That would explain why the Mining Act is peppered with provisions on land, land use and the environment. That then ought to raise questions about jurisdiction, concerning which court would have jurisdiction to handle disputes relating to minerals and mining,’ the court said.
The judge added: ‘Clearly, the Environment and Land Court is the court with jurisdiction to hear disputes relating to mining in Kenya.’
The company had moved to court after the Ministry of Mining and Blue Economy wrote to it on July 28, 2026, directing it to suspend its mining operations over alleged non-compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements.
Tata Chemicals Magadi sought to quash the letter, arguing that the decision was unconstitutional, null and void, and violated its rights under the Constitution and the Mining Act.
The company contended that the suspension was imposed without prior notice or an opportunity to respond to the allegations, address the alleged deficiencies, or show cause why its operations should not be halted.
While acknowledging that the government has powers under the Mining Act to administer the law, including suspending or revoking mineral rights and licences, the company argued that such powers must be exercised in accordance with the law.
It further argued that the decision was disproportionate because it imposed an immediate and blanket suspension of all its mining operations, which it said was unrelated to the allegations contained in the ministry’s letter.
In response, Secretary of Mines in the State Department for Mining, Thomas Mutwiwa, said the government had engaged the company over several years regarding its statutory obligations.
He said the notice was issued to compel the company to comply with the law following several alleged violations, including non-payment of royalties and the accumulation of royalty arrears.
Mr Mutwiwa said the ministry had written several letters to the company over the outstanding issues, which were followed by visits from inspection teams.
He added that the local community had raised complaints against the company, accusing it of exploiting local mineral resources and degrading the environment without providing tangible economic benefits to residents.
The ministry also cited complaints relating to land rates and alleged non-compliance with local content requirements.
Mr Mutwiwa said the issues remained unresolved despite engagements with the company to address the complaints.
He told the court that a meeting was held on July 29, 2026, a day after the suspension notice was issued, during which the company committed to cooperate with the ministry by providing information and documentation.
The ministry further argued that the company had applied for a licence, which was still being processed.
Mutwiwa said Tata Chemicals Magadi did not hold a mining licence or any other mineral right granted under the Mining Act. He therefore maintained that the decision to halt its operations did not amount to the suspension of a mineral right.