Tata Chemicals questions closure order over community complaints

Tata Chemicals factory in Magadi, Kajiado County. [Wilberforce Okwiri, Standard]

Tata Chemicals Magadi has accused the Ministry of Mining of relying on an alleged community complaint that it says has never been disclosed to justify an order halting its operations, challenging the government’s account that the company’s mining licence remains intact and its operations have merely been temporarily stopped pending compliance.

While telling the court that the Kenya Kwanza government had not invited it for a hearing nor produced the alleged complaint to allow it to respond, Tata insisted that the move was out of malice and meant to achieve an ulterior motive.

“The respondents, while having a public law duty to make full and candid disclosure, have instead made vague allegations of having received complaints from the community without providing any particulars of the nature of the complaints, when they were made and who made such complaints to enable the applicant to respond formally or to demonstrate compliance where applicable,” argued Tata.

The government, on the other hand, claimed that it decided to have Tata Chemicals close shop following alleged complaints by local communities that it had been exploiting minerals from Lake Magadi without benefiting them.

Besides alleged nonpayment of royalties, Secretary of Mines Thomas Mtwiwa claimed that there were many complaints by the local community, which allegedly had also been passed to the National Assembly Departmental Committee on Environment, Forestry and Mining.

He claimed that Tata’s license had not been cancelled. Instead, according to Mtwiwa, the closure order was for the company to comply.

He also claimed that the government had also suspended the operations of Universal Exploration Limited and Apple Mining Group in Taita Taveta over alleged compliance issues.

The state official claimed that High Court Judge William Musyoka had no powers to entertain the case.

“Given that the mineral right or mining licence itself has not been suspended or revoked, but instead operations have been temporarily halted pending compliance, the 1st Respondent's decision constituted an interim regulatory measure rather than a suspension of the mineral right contemplated by sections 147 or 173. Accordingly, the formal notice of 30 days to be issued before suspension of a mining license does not arise in this case,” claimed Mtwiwa.

In its case, Tata told the court that it was neither issued with a notice to cease operations nor was it invited to a hearing by the Ministry of Mining officials.

The company maintained that it had written to Cabinet Secretary Hassan Joho-led Ministry between August 30, 2021 and February 27, 2023, requesting them to reconsider the basis on which royalty was calculated.

It argued that the communication between it and the ministry did not amount to non-compliance.

Tata said that on June 22, 2026, a team from the Mining Ministry visited its factory at Magadi. By the time the court heard, the company had already paid royalty fees and forwarded the same through an email.

Tata said that the ministry never responded to the email.

It stated that it continued to pay the money despite there being a judgment by the High Court, declaring the 2024 royalty regulations unconstitutional.

“In any event, the sanction prescribed under the Mining Act and Regulations for non-payment or late payment of royalty is the imposition of penalties, and not the suspension of operations, as the first respondent (CS) has purported to do,” replied Tata.

It disputed Mtwiwa’s account on community grievances, saying that other than a land rates dispute between it and Kajiado County Government, it was not aware of any petition or complaint raised to either the Executive or Parliament.

Tata said it came to learn about allegations for the first time in the suspension letter dated July 28, 2026.

“The applicant has no knowledge of any such complaints or meeting and was never summoned to answer any query in relation to the allegations, and the respondents have not produced a copy of the committee’s report, if any exists,” he said.

Tata insisted that Joho was acting as the complainant, the prosecutor, the judge, jury and the executioner.

It insisted that he had no authority to act without following the law simply because he had reigned over others.

“It is worth noting that, in the disposition made in the replying affidavit, the respondents have not at no point specified the statutory provisions from which the first respondent purports to draw the power to suspend a mining company’s operations,” Tata’s lawyer George Oraro argued.