High Court clears Tanzanite One ex-employees to seek judicial review

The decision was issued on Wednesday, August 13, 2025, by High Court Judge Dafina Daniel Ndumbaro in Arusha, and a copy was published on Saturday, August 16, 2025, on the TanzLII Court website, which provides free access to judgments, laws, and regulations online.

The 470 employees sought permission to challenge government actions, specifically the Ministry of Minerals and the Attorney General’s decision to revoke the companies’ mining licences, which led to job losses.

According to application number 5784 of 2025, the government revoked the mining licence ML. 490/2013 for Plot C in Mirerani, Simanjiro District, Manyara Region, placing the area under military management.

The employees argue that this action has made it impossible to enforce a labour tribunal award they won, which required the companies to pay Sh2.52 billion in back wages.

They also intend to challenge the legality of granting Plot C to a new investor, which obstructs recovery of the award from assets formerly owned by their employer, now under military control.

Through this court approval, they aim to contest what they describe as a collusive partnership between the government and Sky Group, designed to transfer the plot while denying the employees their rights.

Reason for seeking judicial review

Lawyer Frank Makishe, representing the applicants, said they are challenging administrative decisions that caused job losses and blocked the enforcement of the labour tribunal award.

The dispute centres on the government revoking Tanzanite One’s mining licence for Plot C, which led to employee displacement and termination.

They filed a claim with the Commission for Mediation and Arbitration (CMA) and were awarded Sh2.52 billion in back wages, but enforcement has failed since the government handed the mine to a new investor.

The lawyer explained that applicants worked for Tanzanite One and continued under Sky Group Associates Limited, which entered a partnership with the National Mining Corporation (Stamico).

It was later discovered that Sky Group Associates Limited was not registered with the Business Registration and Licensing Agency (BRELA). Despite this, Stamico partnered with the company.

The government revoked the licence due to the illegality of the partnership, but did so without considering the employment interests of the applicants.

The revocation, combined with military presence and absence of the employer, has prevented applicants from enforcing legal rights, including collecting the Sh2.52 billion award.

Furthermore, lawyer Makishe said the applicants attempted negotiations with respondents but were met with unfulfilled promises and political statements.

He claimed the military presence, cited for security, has not prevented illegal mining, as shown in the 2020/2021 Controller and Auditor General (CAG) report.

Government response

Representing the government, lawyer Zamaradi Nyamuryekung’e argued the applicants failed to meet legal criteria for judicial review, offering no dispute, violation, or sufficient interest justifying court intervention.

While acknowledging that permission is required to file for judicial review, Nyamuryekung’e said it should be granted only if the court is satisfied there is a legitimate case.

He maintained that the revocation of the licence ML. 490/2013 was legally valid under statutory procedures, including employment issues, and no fundamental rights were violated. The military presence was for security.

The lawyer noted that applicants failed to cite any specific law violated and merely elaborated on the issue.

He added that their rights were protected in the CMA hearing and that they voluntarily withdrew to enforce the award, weakening the case for judicial review.

Judge’s decision

Judge Ndumbaro said the applications were filed within the legal timeframe.

“The issue for this court is whether the applicants have shown their interests were affected and there are arguable points warranting judicial review,” he said, adding:

“Based on submissions from both parties, the court is satisfied that applicants’ rights and interests were affected by the administrative actions of the respondents (the Ministry of Minerals and the AG).”

The judge noted applicants worked in a partnership between the first respondent and Sky Group, which they claim lacked legal status.

“Following revocation of the licence ML. 490/2013 and military control of the mine, applicants have been unable to enforce the CMA award. Respondents have provided no legal justification for failing to address employment issues or assist in enforcement,” he said.

“Moreover, the issues raised regarding licence revocation, military presence, and respondents’ failure to fulfil obligations are serious matters deserving judicial scrutiny. These are not frivolous claims.”

Judge Ndumbaro approved the applications for judicial review and gave the applicants 14 days to file in court formally.