New twist in Sh100 billion court case against Barrick Gold
What you need to know:
- The 75-year-old Tarime resident has called on the Ministry of Lands, Housing, and Human Settlements Development to intervene in the implementation of the Sh100 billion court judgment against Barrick Gold
Dar es Salaam. A legal battle over a Sh100 billion compensation awarded by the Land Tribunal against Barrick Gold has taken a new twist.
The dispute, involving Augustino Nestory Sasi, a 75-year-old resident of Tarime, and Barrick Gold, has reached a critical juncture, with calls for intervention from the Ministry of Lands, Housing and Human Settlements Development.
In a formal appeal that The Citizen has seen and which was sent to Deputy Minister for Lands, Mr Geoffrey M Pinda, Sasi highlighted ongoing issues with the execution of the tribunal’s judgement and the refusal of the Chairman of the Land and Housing Tribunal of Tarime to recuse himself from Case No 57/2024.
Sasi is appealing to the Deputy Minister for urgent intervention, arguing that the Chairman’s refusal to recuse himself and the delays in justice undermine the integrity of the legal process.
The case, which was scheduled for a hearing on August 13, 2024, will now be heard on August 29. It has been marked by significant legal and procedural challenges.
The saga commenced in 2013 when Barrick North Mara Gold Mine surveyed Sasi’s land, comprising parcels with reference numbers T-03747 and T-038558.
Despite the survey, compensation owed to Sasi under government regulations was never paid.
In 2020, Sasi received a letter from the mine’s general manager, citing delays in compensation payments without offering a clear explanation, as stipulated under GN No 78/2003. In the letter, the manager said several others like him had not been paid.
Due to the lack of progress, Sasi sought legal representation in 2023, ten years after his land had been acquired by Barrick North Mara Gold Mine, and it had come to his attention that the mine had dug an ‘underground’.
The matter was initially brought before the Ward Tribunal of Kemambo for mediation in May 2023.
After rigorous negotiations, a breakthrough was reached when both parties agreed to a substantial settlement of Sh100 billion in May 2023.
However, the euphoria of reaching settlement was short-lived. Barrick North Mara Gold Mine filed a revision case (No 90/2023) in the District Land and Housing Tribunal of Tarime District a month later, seeking to overturn the agreement signed at the Ward Tribunal.
Sasi’s legal team swiftly responded with an execution case (No. 108/2023) to enforce the agreed settlement, arguing vehemently against Barrick’s attempt to backtrack on their commitments.
The legal arena became a battlefield of paperwork and arguments, with subsequent objections (No. 122/2023) and counter-objections further muddying the waters.
Amidst this legal tug-of-war, tribunal decisions came and went, each decision carrying significant financial and reputational implications for both parties.
In September 2023, the tribunal dismissed Barrick’s revision attempt (case No 90/2023) and subsequent objections (case No 122/2023), ordering the mine to uphold the original settlement terms. However, Barrick escalated matters to the High Court in Musoma, filing for revision (case No 17/2023) and a stay of execution (case No 83/2023) in October 2023.
The High Court summarily dismissed the two applications in November 2023, reinforcing the tribunal’s earlier rulings.
As 2023 came to a close, Barrick sought a stay of execution through a bank guarantee application (No 172/2023), hoping to stall enforcement of the tribunal’s orders.
Despite their efforts, the tribunal mandated Barrick to provide a substantial bank guarantee within a tight timeframe, a directive Barrick failed to comply with by the December deadline.
The New Year brought renewed vigour from Sasi’s legal team. Armed with court orders and a determination to secure justice, they pressed forward with execution proceedings, identifying Barrick’s assets for seizure.
The tribunal’s decisions in April 2024 were pivotal, reaffirming the enforceability of their judgements and rejecting Barrick’s objections on procedural grounds.