Tata Chemicals suffers blow in battle to reopen Magadi plant

The High Court has declined to temporarily lift the suspension of operations at Tata Chemicals Magadi Limited, leaving the soda ash producer under a government-ordered stoppage as a dispute over mining compliance, royalties and licensing continues.

• Justice W Musyoka rejected the company's application for an interim prohibition order seeking to stop the implementation of a July 28, 2026 directive by the Cabinet Secretary for Mining, Blue Economy and Maritime Affairs suspending its operations.
• Tata Chemicals Magadi had moved to court arguing that the suspension was imposed without adequate notice and an opportunity to respond, and disputed the claim that it owed outstanding royalties.
• The judge emphasised that the interim proceedings were not intended to determine the merits of the wider dispute but to balance the interests of the company against the government's statutory responsibilities.

The government told the court that the company had been issued with several notices dating back to 2023, with the latest dated May 14, 2026, over alleged royalty arrears. It further argued that the parties had continued engaging on the dispute, including a meeting on July 29 where they agreed that the suspension would remain in force as the company worked towards compliance.

The company had argued that continued suspension would expose it and other businesses and individuals dependent on its operations to substantial losses. It relied on provisions of the Fair Administrative Action Act and several previous court decisions in seeking temporary relief.

The government countered that the suspension had already been implemented and that a stay would therefore no longer be effective.

The State also told the court that Tata Chemicals Magadi did not hold a current mining licence, saying its application for a new licence was still being processed.

In declining to grant the temporary order, Justice Musyoka said the July 28 decision had already taken effect by the time the company approached the court on July 30. The judge also noted that the parties had reached an understanding during their July 29 meeting that the stoppage would continue while the company took steps to comply with the requirements.

“The impugned suspension is not permanent, but temporary,” the judge said, according to the ruling.