Sasisho (R.E. 2023):Update (R.E. 2023):Mise à jour (R.E. 2023) :Atualização (R.E. 2023):更新（2023年修订版）：تحديث (الطبعة المنقحة 2023): Katika Sheria ya Madini, Sura ya 123 R.E. 2023, kifungu cha 119 sasa ni k. 150 na rufaa (zamani k. 121) ni k. 152. Kanuni zilizoelezwa hapa bado zinatumika.In the Mining Act, Cap. 123 R.E. 2023, section 119 is now s. 150 and the appeal provision (formerly s. 121) is s. 152. The principles discussed here still apply.Dans la loi minière, Cap. 123 R.E. 2023, l'article 119 devient l'art. 150 et la disposition sur l'appel (ancien art. 121) devient l'art. 152. Les principes exposés ici restent applicables.Na Lei de Minas, Cap. 123 R.E. 2023, a secção 119 passa a ser a s. 150 e a disposição sobre recurso (antiga s. 121) passa a ser a s. 152. Os princípios aqui expostos continuam aplicáveis.在《矿业法》第123章2023年修订版中，第119条现为第150条，上诉条款（原第121条）现为第152条。本文所述原则仍然适用。في قانون التعدين، الفصل 123 (الطبعة المنقحة 2023)، أصبحت المادة 119 هي المادة 150، وأصبح حكم الاستئناف (المادة 121 سابقاً) المادة 152. وتظل المبادئ الواردة هنا سارية. Soma mabadiliko →Read what has changed →Voir les changements →Ver as alterações →查看变化 →← اطّلع على التغييرات
Cette note juridique est publiée en anglais (langue des tribunaux tanzaniens) et en kiswahili. Le texte anglais est affiché ci-dessous.Esta nota jurídica é publicada em inglês (língua dos tribunais da Tanzânia) e em kiswahili. O texto em inglês é apresentado abaixo.本法律评述以英文（坦桑尼亚法院工作语言）及斯瓦希里语发布，以下显示英文版本。تُنشر هذه المذكرة القانونية باللغة الإنجليزية (لغة المحاكم التنزانية) وباللغة السواحيلية، ويُعرض النص الإنجليزي أدناه.
Kwa mujibu wa sheria za Jamhuri ya Muungano wa Tanzania, Tume ya Madini—kupitia Katibu Mtendaji wake au Mkurugenzi aliyekasimiwa mamlaka—ina mamlaka ya kipekee ya awali kusikiliza na kuamua aina mahususi za migogoro inayohusiana na madini. Mahakama Kuu ya Tanzania imesisitiza mara kwa mara kwamba jukwaa hili la kisheria haliwezi kurukwa: mhusika anayefungua mgogoro wa aina hiyo moja kwa moja katika mahakama za kawaida hufanya hivyo kabla ya wakati, na mashauri hayo huwa batili.
1. Mfumo wa Kisheria
Mamlaka ya Tume yanatokana na nyaraka kuu mbili:
- Sheria ya Madini, Sura ya 123 — hususan kifungu cha 119, kinachoipa Tume mamlaka ya kuchunguza na kuamua migogoro inayotokana na shughuli za utafutaji na uchimbaji wa madini; na
- Kanuni za Madini (Utatuzi wa Migogoro), G.N. Na. 323 ya 2021 — hususan Kanuni ya 3(1), inayoainisha aina za migogoro inayosikilizwa na Tume na kuweka utaratibu wa kuiwasilisha, kuisikiliza na kuiamua.
Masharti haya yanasomwa pamoja na kifungu cha 7(1) cha Sheria ya Mwenendo wa Mashauri ya Madai, Sura ya 33, ambacho kinaelekeza mahakama kusikiliza mashauri yote ya madai isipokuwa yale ambayo usikilizwaji wake umezuiwa waziwazi au kwa kudokezwa na sheria. Pale Bunge linapokabidhi mgogoro kwa chombo maalum cha kisheria, mamlaka ya mahakama za kawaida katika ngazi ya awali huondolewa kwa kiwango hicho.
2. Wigo wa Mamlaka ya Tume
Mamlaka ya Tume ni mahususi, si ya jumla. Yanahusu migogoro kati ya watu wanaojihusisha na utafutaji au uchimbaji wa madini—iwe miongoni mwao wenyewe, au kati yao na watu wengine wasio Serikali—kuhusiana na mambo yafuatayo:
Mipaka
Migogoro kuhusu mipaka ya eneo lolote lenye haki ya madini, ikiwemo leseni zinazoingiliana, alama za mipaka (beacons) na viwianishi vya upimaji.
Haki za Maji na Miundombinu
Madai ya kujenga, kutumia au kupewa kipaumbele cha maji na miundombinu ya maji—pampu, mabomba, mifereji, mabwawa na hifadhi za maji—inayohusiana na utafutaji au uchimbaji wa madini.
Fidia
Tathmini na ulipaji wa fidia kwa mujibu wa Sheria ya Madini, ikiwemo fidia kwa wamiliki wa ardhi walioathiriwa na shughuli za uchimbaji.
Shughuli Kati ya Wahusika
Migogoro inayotokana na shughuli za utafutaji au uchimbaji kati ya wachimbaji wenyewe, au kati yao na watu wengine, kama vile uvamizi wa eneo la uchimbaji na kuingilia shughuli za madini.
Mambo yasiyohusika. Migogoro inayoihusisha Serikali katika mamlaka yake ya kiserikali, pamoja na migogoro kati ya wawekezaji na Serikali inayosimamiwa na mikataba ya uwekezaji au mifumo mingine ya kimataifa, iko nje ya utaratibu huu na hutatuliwa kupitia majukwaa yaliyoainishwa na nyaraka hizo.
3. Kanuni Kuu za Kimahakama
(a) Kumaliza kwanza njia ya kisheria iliyowekwa
Katika mfululizo wa maamuzi ya mwaka 2026—yakiwemo Geita Gold Mining Limited dhidi ya Jackson Joseph Silika, Geita Gold Mining Limited dhidi ya Jane John Francis na Geita Gold Mining Limited dhidi ya Samson Kahiga Mtayegwa—Mahakama Kuu ya Tanzania ilisisitiza kuwa haina mamlaka ya awali juu ya migogoro inayohusu miundombinu na shughuli za uchimbaji wa madini. Migogoro hiyo lazima kwanza iwasilishwe na kuamuliwa na Tume ya Madini.
(b) Mashauri yaliyofunguliwa kabla ya wakati ni batili
Mahakama iliamua kwamba shauri la madai lililofunguliwa moja kwa moja mahakamani bila kwanza kumaliza utaratibu wa lazima wa utatuzi wa migogoro mbele ya Tume ni la mapema na lisilo na uhalali. Kwa kuwa suala la mamlaka linagusa msingi wa shauri, mwenendo na hukumu za mahakama isiyo na mamlaka ni batili—bila kujali hoja za msingi, na hata kama pingamizi hilo halikuibuliwa wakati wa usikilizwaji.
(c) Mamlaka yenye mipaka
Vilevile, Mahakama imesisitiza kuwa mamlaka ya Katibu Mtendaji yamefungwa madhubuti kwenye mambo yaliyoorodheshwa katika kifungu cha 119 cha Sheria na Kanuni ya 3(1) ya Kanuni. Si kila mgogoro unaohusisha kampuni ya madini unaangukia mamlaka ya Tume: madai ya jumla ya madai—kwa mfano, madai ya madhara (tort) ya mtu wa tatu yasiyohusiana na shughuli za utafutaji au uchimbaji—bado yanaweza kufunguliwa katika mahakama za kawaida. Kinyume chake, migogoro ya mipaka na uvamizi au uingiliaji unaotokana na miundombinu na shughuli za uchimbaji iko ndani kabisa ya mamlaka ya Tume.
4. Athari kwa Vitendo
| Mdau | Maana yake |
|---|---|
| Wamiliki wa leseni za madini na wawekezaji | Iwapo dai linaloangukia kifungu cha 119 limefunguliwa dhidi yako mahakamani, pingamizi la awali kuhusu mamlaka linaweza kulimaliza. Hakikisha madai yako mwenyewe yanaanzia Tume kwanza. |
| Wachimbaji wadogo | Migogoro ya mipaka, fidia na shughuli na wamiliki wa leseni jirani ipelekwe Tume ya Madini (kupitia Ofisi ya Afisa Madini Mkazi), si mahakama ya wilaya au ya mwanzo. |
| Wamiliki wa ardhi na jamii | Madai ya fidia chini ya Sheria ya Madini hutathminiwa na Tume. Kufungua shauri moja kwa moja mahakamani kunahatarisha muda na gharama kwa mashauri yatakayotangazwa kuwa batili. |
| Mawakili na washauri wa kisheria | Bainisha aina ya mgogoro mapema. Hakiki iwapo unaangukia kifungu cha 119 na Kanuni ya 3(1) kabla ya kuchagua jukwaa, na linda haki ya mteja ya kukata rufaa Mahakama Kuu dhidi ya uamuzi wa Tume. |
5. Hatua Zinazopendekezwa Mgogoro wa Madini Unapotokea
- Bainisha aina ya mgogoro — hakiki iwapo unahusu mipaka, haki za maji au miundombinu, fidia, au shughuli za uchimbaji chini ya kifungu cha 119.
- Kusanya ushahidi — leseni, ramani na viwianishi, kumbukumbu za alama za mipaka, jedwali za tathmini na fidia, mikataba, barua na picha.
- Wasilisha malalamiko Tume ya Madini kwa namna na fomu zilizoelekezwa na Kanuni za Madini (Utatuzi wa Migogoro), 2021.
- Shiriki katika usikilizwaji mbele ya Katibu Mtendaji au Mkurugenzi aliyekasimiwa, na zingatia maelekezo ya kiutaratibu.
- Zingatia rufaa — mhusika asiyeridhika na uamuzi wa Tume anaweza kukata rufaa Mahakama Kuu kama ilivyoelekezwa na Sheria ya Madini, ndani ya muda uliowekwa.
6. Hitimisho
Msimamo wa kimahakama sasa uko wazi na thabiti: kwa aina za migogoro zilizoainishwa katika kifungu cha 119 cha Sheria ya Madini na Kanuni ya 3(1) ya Kanuni za Madini (Utatuzi wa Migogoro), Tume ya Madini ndiyo jukwaa la ngazi ya kwanza. Kuheshimu mfuatano huu wa kisheria huokoa muda na gharama, huzuia mashauri kutangazwa batili, na huhakikisha uamuzi wa kitaalamu wa sekta husika—huku jukumu la usimamizi na rufaa la Mahakama Kuu likibaki palepale.
Under the laws of the United Republic of Tanzania, the Mining Commission—acting through its Executive Secretary or a duly delegated Director—holds exclusive original jurisdiction to hear and determine defined categories of mining-related disputes. The High Court of Tanzania has repeatedly affirmed that this statutory forum cannot be bypassed: a party that files such a dispute directly in the ordinary courts does so prematurely, and the resulting proceedings are a nullity.
1. The Legal Framework
The jurisdiction of the Commission rests on two principal instruments:
- The Mining Act, Cap. 123 — in particular section 119, which empowers the Commission to inquire into and decide disputes arising in connection with prospecting and mining operations; and
- The Mining (Disputes Resolution) Rules, G.N. No. 323 of 2021 — in particular Rule 3(1), which restates the categories of disputes cognisable by the Commission and prescribes the procedure for lodging, hearing and determining them.
These provisions operate alongside section 7(1) of the Civil Procedure Code, Cap. 33, under which the courts try all suits of a civil nature except those whose cognisance is expressly or impliedly barred. Where Parliament has vested a dispute in a specialised statutory body, the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts at first instance is, to that extent, ousted.
2. Scope of the Commission’s Jurisdiction
The Commission’s mandate is specific, not general. It extends to disputes between persons engaged in prospecting or mining operations—whether among themselves, or between themselves and third parties other than the Government—in connection with the following matters:
Boundaries
Disputes concerning the boundaries of any area that is the subject of a mineral right, including overlapping licences, beacons and survey coordinates.
Water Rights & Infrastructure
Claims to erect, construct, use or take priority over water and water infrastructure—pumps, pipelines, drains, dams, reservoirs and similar works—connected with prospecting or mining.
Compensation
The assessment and payment of compensation arising under the Mining Act, including compensation to land occupiers affected by mining operations.
Operations Among Parties
Disputes arising from prospecting or mining operations between operators themselves, or between operators and third parties, such as operational trespass and interference with mining activities.
Excluded matters. Disputes involving the Government in its sovereign capacity, and investor–State disputes governed by bilateral investment treaties, investment laws or other international frameworks, fall outside this mechanism and are resolved through the fora those instruments prescribe.
3. Key Judicial Principles
(a) Exhaustion of the statutory remedy
In a series of 2026 rulings—including Geita Gold Mining Limited v. Jackson Joseph Silika, Geita Gold Mining Limited v. Jane John Francis and Geita Gold Mining Limited v. Samson Kahiga Mtayegwa—the High Court of Tanzania reaffirmed that it lacks original jurisdiction over disputes relating to mining infrastructure and mining operations. Such disputes must first be presented to, and determined by, the Mining Commission.
(b) Premature filings are a nullity
The Court held that a civil suit instituted directly in court, without first exhausting the mandatory dispute-resolution procedure before the Commission, is premature and incompetent. Because jurisdiction goes to the root of the matter, proceedings conducted and judgments delivered by a court lacking jurisdiction are a nullity—regardless of the merits, and even where the parties did not raise the objection at trial.
(c) A confined mandate
Equally, the Court has stressed that the Executive Secretary’s powers are strictly confined to the matters listed in section 119 of the Act and Rule 3(1) of the Rules. Not every dispute that involves a mining company falls within the Commission’s jurisdiction: general civil claims—for instance, a tort claim by a third party that is unconnected to prospecting or mining operations—may still be pursued in the ordinary courts. By contrast, boundary disputes and trespass or interference arising from mining infrastructure and operations fall squarely within the Commission’s mandate.
4. Practical Implications
| Stakeholder | What this means |
|---|---|
| Mining licence holders & investors | Where a claim falling under section 119 is filed against you in court, a preliminary objection on jurisdiction may dispose of it. Ensure that your own claims are lodged with the Commission first. |
| Artisanal & small-scale miners | Boundary, compensation and operational disputes with neighbouring licence holders should be taken to the Mining Commission (through the Resident Mine Office), not to a district or primary court. |
| Landowners & communities | Compensation claims arising under the Mining Act are assessed by the Commission. Filing directly in court risks losing time and costs on proceedings later declared a nullity. |
| Advocates & legal advisers | Characterise the dispute carefully at the outset. Determine whether it falls within section 119 and Rule 3(1) before choosing the forum, and preserve the client’s right of appeal to the High Court from the Commission’s decision. |
5. Recommended Steps When a Mining Dispute Arises
- Classify the dispute — confirm whether it concerns boundaries, water rights or infrastructure, compensation, or mining operations within section 119.
- Gather the evidence — licences, cadastral maps and coordinates, beacon records, valuation and compensation schedules, agreements, correspondence and photographs.
- Lodge the complaint with the Commission in the form and manner prescribed by the Mining (Disputes Resolution) Rules, 2021.
- Participate in the hearing before the Executive Secretary or the delegated Director, and comply with procedural directions.
- Consider an appeal — a party aggrieved by the Commission’s decision may challenge it before the High Court as provided under the Mining Act, within the prescribed time limits.
6. Conclusion
The jurisprudence is now settled and consistent: for the categories of disputes defined in section 119 of the Mining Act and Rule 3(1) of the Mining (Disputes Resolution) Rules, the Mining Commission is the court of first instance. Respecting this statutory sequence saves parties time and costs, avoids proceedings being declared a nullity, and secures an expert, sector-specific determination—while the High Court’s supervisory and appellate role remains intact.