Bowmans (Law Firm) Highlights Tanzania High Court Ruling Invalidating Key CSR Mining Regulations

Bowmans Highlights Tanzania High Court Ruling Invalidating Key CSR Mining Regulations

Bowmans analyses a significant decision of the High Court of Tanzania declaring key provisions of the Mining (Corporate Social Responsibility) Regulations, 2023 invalid, reaffirming the statutory limits on regulatory powers and the primacy of host community benefits under the Mining Act.

Overview

The High Court of Tanzania has delivered a decision declaring key provisions of the Mining (Corporate Social Responsibility) Regulations invalid.

The Regulations require mineral right holders to prepare CSR plans for the development of environmental, social, economic and cultural projects in mining areas jointly with local government authorities and host communities.

They outline a 40%/60% model for allocating the division or redistribution of CSR resources between host communities and district or municipal councils.

The Court held that the CSR Regulations are ultra vires the Mining Act and therefore invalid.

The Court also held that the Minister for Minerals’ regulation-making powers cannot be exercised in a manner that alters the beneficiaries contemplated under the parent legislation.

On 28 January 2026, the High Court of Tanzania delivered its decision in Godfrey Mwita Kegoye and 4 Others v Minister for Minerals and the Attorney General, declaring key provisions of the Mining (Corporate Social Responsibility) Regulations, 2023 issued under Government Notice No. 409 of 2023, invalid.

The ruling concerns the mechanism introduced under the Regulations for allocating corporate social responsibility (CSR) resources generated by mineral right holders between host communities and local government authorities.

The Court held that the provisions establishing the CSR allocation framework were inconsistent with the Mining Act, Cap. 123 R.E. 2023 and therefore invalid.

Background

The Regulations were issued to guide the implementation of CSR obligations imposed on mineral right holders under the Mining Act. The Regulations require mineral right holders to prepare CSR plans for the development of environmental, social, economic and cultural projects in mining areas, jointly with local government authorities and host communities.

Regulation 4(4) introduced a funding allocation mechanism under which:

40% of CSR resources are to be allocated to projects implemented at the village or community level; and
60% of CSR resources are to be allocated to projects implemented by the district, municipal or city council where the mining activities occur.

Residents of communities surrounding the North Mara Gold Mine challenged the legality of this allocation framework through judicial review proceedings.

Decision of the Court

The High Court held that Regulation 4(4)(a) and (b) of the CSR Regulations are ultra vires the Mining Act and therefore invalid.

The Court found that:

• the Mining Act requires CSR plans to benefit host communities located in areas where mining activities take place;
  
• the Mining Act does not authorise the division or redistribution of CSR resources between host communities and district or municipal councils; and
  
• by allocating 60% of CSR resources to local government authorities, the Regulations diverted funds intended for host communities and undermined the statutory purpose of the CSR framework.

The Court further held that the Minister for Minerals’ regulation-making powers cannot be exercised in a manner that alters the beneficiaries contemplated under the parent legislation.

The Court also found that the evidence presented did not demonstrate that host communities were adequately consulted before the Regulations were enacted.

As such, the Court granted the following relief:

• an order of certiorari quashing the Minister’s decision to enact Regulation 4(4)(a) and (b);
  
• a declaration that Regulation 4(4)(a) and (b) are null and void based on inconsistency with the Mining Act; and
  
• an order prohibiting the application or implementation of those provisions.

The remainder of the Regulations remain in force.

Implications for the Mining Sector

The ruling removes the regulatory basis for the 40%/60% CSR allocation model introduced under the Regulations.

While the broader CSR framework under the Regulations continues to apply, the decision creates uncertainty regarding the mechanism for allocating CSR resources between host communities and local government authorities.

Subject to any appeal, mineral right holders should review their CSR planning and budgeting frameworks to ensure alignment with the Mining Act and the Court’s interpretation that CSR initiatives are intended primarily to benefit host communities in mining areas.

Further regulatory clarification will be required to address the allocation framework following the Court’s decision.

Team

Evarist Kameja (Senior Associate) and Allen Lema (Associate)

Conclusion

This landmark ruling reinforces the principle that delegated legislation must strictly adhere to the framework and intent of the parent statute. It underscores the judiciary’s role in safeguarding community-centric benefits in the mining sector while limiting regulatory overreach. The decision also signals the need for legislative or regulatory recalibration to ensure clarity and fairness in CSR allocation mechanisms moving forward.

Click to know more about Bowmans

If you have a news or deal publication or would like to collaborate on content, columns, or article publications, connect with the Legal Era News Network Team and email us at info@legalera.in or call us on +91 8879634922.