Kamuntu Investment Limited and Another v Dr. Narcis Kabatereine T/A Kigezi Iron Ore Miners Association and Others (Civil Suit 10 of 2023) [2025] UGHC 354 (10 April 2025)

5 THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KABALE

CIVIL SUIT NO. 0010 OF 2023

- 1. KAMUNTU INVESTIMENT LIMITED - 10 2. KAMUNTU MOSES:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

- 1. DR. NARCIS KABATEREINE T/A KIGEZI IRON ORE MINERS ASSOCIATION - 15 2. KIMSHAN INVESTIMENTS LIMITED - 3. ADT AFRICA LIMITED:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::DEFENDENTS

BEFORE: HON. JUSTICE SAMUEL EMOKOR

RULING

- 20 The Plaintiffs filed this Suit seeking Orders that the defendants jointly and severally have breached/violated the Plaintiff's Constitutional, Statutory and common law rights to exclusively conduct exploration, mining and prospecting operations in their mining licenses, general, special and punitive damages, interest and costs of the suit. - 25 When this matter came up for hearing the Defendants' Counsel raised Preliminary Objections to the effect that the Plaintiff's Suit was without a cause of action upon which this Court provided a schedule for Counsel to file written submissions.

Representation.

The Plaintiff was represented by Messrs GEM Advocates while the 1 st Defendant

30 was represented by Messrs JByamukama & Co. Advocates, while Messrs Jingo Ssempja & Co. Advocates appeared for the 2nd and 3rd Defendants.

5 Legal Arguments.

Counsel for the 2nd and 3rd Defendants in his written submission relied on the provisions of Order 6 Rule 30(i) Civil Procedure Rules that provides that:

*"The Court may, upon application, order any pleading to be struck out on the ground that it discloses no reasonable cause of action or answer and in any such*

10 *case, or in case of the Suit or defence being shown by the pleadings to be frivolous or vexatious, may order the Suit to be stayed or dismissed or Judgment to be entered accordingly as may be just".*

Counsel also on the ingredients for a cause of action relied on the case of Auto Garage and others versus Motokov [1971] EA 514.

- 15 In which the Court laid the test for determining whether or not a Plaint disclosed a cause of action as being: - a) That the Plaintiff enjoyed a right. - b) That the right has been violated. - c) That the Defendants is liable. - 20 The gist of the Preliminary Objection is that the Plaintiffs are without any right because the location license No. LL00046; LL00044, EL 1740, LL 00230 permitting the Plaintiff to carry out small scale prospecting and mining of Iron Ore in the area subject of the license are expired licenses and that on the 07/12/2023 at the filing of the instant Suit, there was no valid license and hence 25 no cause of action.

5 Counsel for the Plaintiff in their reply rely on Regulation 53(5) of the Mining *and Mineral (Licensing) Regulations 2023 which provides that;*

*"Where an application under Sub Regulation (1) has been submitted but the holder has not yet received notice that his or her license has been renewed or that the application has been rejected before the date on which the license expires, the*

10 *holder may continue undertaking work obligations under that mineral right until so notified and if granted, the renewal shall be effective from the date on which the license would, but for such renewal, have expired"*

The Plaintiffs therefore submit to having applied for renewal of the Location and Exploration licenses vide TN 03512, TN 03519, TN 03508, TN 03509 and TN 15 03541 and are awaiting the Minister's approval.

Determination.

I agree with all Counsel on the 3 ingredients necessary for the test of whether a cause of action has been established as laid down in Auto Garage versus Motokov (Supra) Lady Justice Mpagi-Bahigeine JA in the said case went onto 20 state thus:

"*If all three elements are present then a cause of action is disclosed and any defect or omission can be put right by amendment. The Judge has a discretion to allow such amendment.*

*However, if any element is missing then no cause of action is established and no* 25 *amendment will be allowed, the under lying principle being that where a Plaint is a nullity, no amendment can redeem it, whereas a mere defect or an irregularity* 5 *may be curable by amendment where the ends of justice so demand, where a cause of action is otherwise disclosed"*

Furthermore, in Attorney General versus Olouch (1972) EA 392 it was held that the question of whether a Plaint discloses a cause of action is determined upon perusal of the Plaint and the attachments thereto with an assumption that the

10 facts pleaded or implied therein are true.

A perusal of the Plaint under paragraph 6 and the attachments thereto reveals that the location licenses granted to the Plaintiff in annexure *"A"* on the 02/07/2020 would consequently expire after two years and thus not later than 02/07/2022. It would therefore mean that at the time of filing the instant Suit on

15 the 07/12/2023 the Location and Exploration licenses of the Plaintiffs had expired.

It is the argument of the Plaintiffs that in 2021 they applied for the renewal of the licenses prior to the coming into effect of the Mining and Mineral (licensing) Regulations of 2023 and pursuant to Regulation 113 of the new Regulation 20 which allows for applications made in 2021 to take effect as those made under the Mining and Minerals Licensing Regulations 2023. Counsel contend that the Mining and Licensing Regulations under Regulation 53(5) allows for Applicants of licenses enjoyments of rights under expired licenses. Counsel proceeds to cite the contents of this provision as follows:

25 *"Where an application under Sub Regulation (1) has been submitted but the holder has not received notice that his or her license has been renewed or that the application has been rejected before the date on which the license expires, the*

5 *holder may continue undertaking work obligations under that Mineral right until so notified; and if granted the renewal shall take effect from the date on which the license would, but for such renewal have expired"*

A perusal of the above cited provision under Section 53(5) of the Mining *and Mineral (Licensing) Regulations 2023* reveals that it provides for the transfer 10 of Mineral rights as follows:

"*The Minister shall satisfy himself or herself of the legal technical capacity, competence and financial strength of the person to whom the Mineral right or share of that right is to be transferred and approve or reject the application for transfer,"*

- 15 The above provision clearly does not reflect what the Plaintiffs' Counsel says that it does. Be that as it may the contents of the provision cited by Counsel or at least most of it is found under Regulation 76 under which Clause (1) which provides for applications for renewal of a license for beneficiation, Clause (3) of the same provides; - 20 "*Where an application under Sub Regulation (1) has been submitted but the holder has not received notice that his or her license has been renewed or that the application has been rejected before the date on which the license expires, the holder may continue taking beneficiation operations under the license until so notified; and if granted the renewal shall take effect from the date on which the* 25 *license would but for such renewal have expired*"

5 The Plaintiff it would appear in making their citation deliberately exchanged the *word "Beneficiation operations*" for *"Work obligations*" thereby giving the provision an entirely new interpretation that favours their cause.

*"Beneficiation"* is not defined by the Mining and Mineral (Licensing) Regulations 2023 but the same in the context of Mining and Materials processing

10 refers to the process of treating Ore materials to improve their quality and make them more suitable for further processing or use, often by separating valuable components from waste material.

See *: Oxford Learner's Dictionary (11th Edition).*

It would appear therefore that in the event that the Plaintiffs applied for renewal 15 of their license for beneficiation their right to continue undertaking beneficiation operations would continue to subsist. However, there appears to be no corresponding provision for extension of licenses to Applicants for Location and Exploration. This extension cannot be presumed it must be expressly provided for by the Regulations and in its absence no party can claim to enjoy the same.

20 As a result of the above it is quite clear that at the time of filing the instant Suit the Plaintiffs enjoyed no rights because their Location and exploration licenses had since expired, consequently no rights were violated and the Defendants are not liable.

5 The Preliminary Objection is therefore sustained and the instant Suit is hereby struck out under Order 6 Rule 30 of the Civil Procedure Rules for disclosing no cause of action with costs to the Defendants.

Before me,

10 ……………………………………. Samuel Emokor

Judge 10/04/2025.

15