REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
JUDICIAL REVIEW DIVISION
JUDICIAL REVIEW APPLICATION NO. E400 OF 2025
LORADO COMPANY LIMITED......................................... APPLICANT
VERSUS
CABINET SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF MINING …………………………….1 ST RESPONDENT
DIRECTOR OF MINES AND GEOLOGY.................2 ND RESPONDENT
AHG METALS KENYA LIMITED ............................3 RD RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
1. Before this Court for determination is Originating Motion dated 4 th December 2025. The motion is supported by the affidavit of Moses Njiru Njeru sworn on even date. The application seeks the following reliefs:
a. That a declaration do issue to the effect that the removal of application for a prospecting licence no. 5455 from the mining cadastre system by the 2 nd Respondent was and is invalid [ultra vires] and void ab initio and of no effect.
b. That an ORDER OF MANDAMUS do issue against the 1st and 2 nd Respondents compelling them to reinstate the applicant’s application for a prospecting licence no. 5455 on the mining cadastre system.
c. That an ORDER OF CERTIORARI do issue to remove to the High Court the decision of the 1 st and 2 nd Respondents to grant mining licenses No’s ML/2025/0212 and ML/2025/0237 to AHG METALS KENYA LIMITED for the purpose of the said decision and the resulting licenses being quashed.
d. That an order of stay be issued on the operation and validity of mining licenses No’s ML/2025/0212 and ML/2025/0237 as issued by the 1st and 2 nd Respondents to AHG METALS KENYA LIMITED pending the hearing and determination of these proceedings.
e. Costs of this application be provided for.
f. Such further and other relief that the Honourable Court may deem just and expedient to grant.
2. The Applicant’s case is that on 10 th May, 2024 , it lodged an application for grant of a prospecting licence on the Mining Cadastre System and was assigned reference number App No. 5455 . That at the time of lodging the application, the area applied for was vacant. It is the Applicant’s case that it uploaded all the required documents, and made the necessary payment to the Ministry of Mining, Blue Economy and Maritime Affairs as prescribed by law.
3. The Applicant states that the acceptance of Application No. 5455 by the Cadastre System on 10 th May, 2024 was sufficient proof that the area was free, since the system cannot accept another application for a mineral right over an already allocated area.
4. However, that by a letter dated 14 th May, 2024 , the Director of Mines wrote to Mr. Njiru as Cadastre Agent stating that Application No. 5455 had been accepted erroneously because the area was already covered by mineral right No. 221 held by Mayfox Mining Company Limited.
5. It is urged that the Director of Mines then expunged the applicant’s Application No. 5455 from the system and replaced it with Prospecting Licence No. 221 in favour of Mayfox Mining Company Limited. The Applicant found this action surprising because the Cadastre System indicated that Mayfox Mining Company Ltd.’s licence was applied for on 11 th July 2003, granted on 3 rd February 2005 , and expired on 31 st January 2017 . The Applicant contends that replacing Lorado’s application with an expired licence was illegal and beyond the Director’s powers and mandate.
6. That anxious that an injustice was being perpetrated, the Applicant wrote to the Director of Mines on 15 th May, 2024 requesting investigations into the expunging of their application. It is urged that no response was received. Subsequently, that the Applicant discovered that the contested area had been partitioned into three blocks and apportioned to two new companies: H-NUO Kenya Company Limited and AHG Metals Kenya Limited, as follows: App No/5677 belonging to AHG Metals Kenya Limited, covering 278 Cadastre blocks , applied for on 5 th July 2024; App No/5681 belonging to H-Nuo Kenya Company Limited, covering 264 Cadastre blocks, applied for on 5 th July 2024 ;App No/5683 belonging to AHG Metals Kenya Limited .
7. This development is said to have raised suspicion regarding the handling of mineral rights by officials within the Ministry responsible for Mining. On 7 th July, 2024, it is stated that the Applicant petitioned the Cabinet Secretary in the Ministry of Mining, Blue Economy and Maritime Affairs and copied various investigative agencies, requesting investigations into suspected dishonesty by Government officials.
8. The Applicant relies on the Mining Act, which provides that applications for mineral rights are considered on a first come first serve basis and maintains that Application No. 5455 by Lorado Company Limited ought to have been considered before App No/5677, App No/5681, and App No/5683 .
9. The Applicant states that Mayfox Mining Company Limited filed suit in MILIMANI H.C JR MISC CAUSE NO. E076 OF 2024 MAYFOX MINING CO. LTD -VS- CABINET SECRETARY; MINISTRY OF MINING AND OTHERS, seeking; An order of certiorari to quash the decision contained in the 2 nd Respondent’s letter dated 5 th June, 2024 rejecting renewal of its licence and removing the mining area from the cadastre system, an order of prohibition restraining the 1 st and 2 nd Respondents from removing the mining area pending hearing and determination, and an order of mandamus compelling approval of its licence pursuant to the Mining Act.
10. The Applicant herein is said to have successfully applied to be enjoined as an Interested Party in that suit, and AHG Metals Kenya Limited was also enjoined as a Respondent.
11. That while the proceedings were pending, on 20 th March, 2025 , the 1 st Respondent issued notice of his intention to grant a mining licence to AHG Metals Kenya Limited under Application Ref. ML/2025/0237 at the lapse of 42 days . That the Notice was published in the Kenya Gazette on 28 th March, 2025 under Notice No. 3874. According, to the Applicant on 6 th May, 2025, the Applicant objected to the intended grant, but received no response from the 1 st or 2 nd Respondents.
12. That on 8 th August, 2025 , the Applicant in the said suit filed a notice of withdrawal before the matter was heard and determined. The Applicant herein objected to the withdrawal, citing pending issues, but on 6 th November, 2025 , the court upheld the withdrawal. Meanwhile, on 18 th September, 2025, the 1 st and 2 nd Respondents granted Licences No. ML/2025/0212 and ML/2025/0237 to AHG Metals Kenya Limited over the disputed area.
13. The Applicant also filed a Further Affidavit sworn by Moses Njiru Njeru on 9 th February 2026, further asserting in deposition that under sections 32(1) and 33(2) of the Mining Act , the Cabinet Secretary may grant, deny or revoke a mineral right upon the recommendation of the Mineral Rights Board. The Applicant states that the 1 st and 2 nd Respondents confirmed in their Replying Affidavit that on 9 th April 2024 the Mineral Rights Board recommended the removal from the Mining Cadastre System of a previous application by Mayfox Company Ltd, and that the Cabinet Secretary approved that removal on 9 th May 2024.
14. According to the Applicant, this meant that all statutory steps required under the Mining Act had been completed and the area was therefore legally free when the Applicant lodged its application. The Applicant maintains that the allegation by the Respondents that the acceptance of its application was erroneous or caused by a system error is false, since there is no provision in the Mining Act allowing reinstatement or reconsideration of a removed application, and once the earlier application had been removed the Mineral Rights Board and the Cabinet Secretary became functus officio.
15. The Applicant further contends that the provisions of section 193(a) and (b) of the Mining Act concerning correction of errors in the register do not apply as there was no error, inaccurate or unlawful entry upon the register to warrant a correction by the 2 nd Respondent, and that section 20(1) does not confer upon the 2 nd Respondent discretion to reinstate an application that has been removed or expunge a lawfully lodged application.
16. The Applicant also avers that after lodging its application and complying with the statutory requirements, the application ought to have been placed before the Mineral Rights Board for consideration and recommendation to the Cabinet Secretary, and that any decision thereon should have been communicated by the Cabinet Secretary, and not the 2 nd Respondent.
17. The Applicant also questions the claim of an alleged system error, noting that a director of the 3 rd Respondent allegedly received a notification when the Applicant lodged its application, which the Applicant argues suggests bias or preferential treatment by the 1 st and 2 nd Respondents.
18. In response to the Respondents’ affidavits regarding the Notice of Motion dated 10 th December 2025, the Applicant states that the ruling delivered on 6 th November 2025 in HCJRMISC/E076/2024 only addressed the withdrawal of that suit and did not determine the substantive dispute, and therefore the present proceedings are neither an appeal nor barred by res judicata.
19. The Applicant further states that judicial review proceedings are properly instituted against the public bodies responsible for the impugned administrative action and that failure to join the 3 rd Respondent at the outset does not amount to concealment, since Interested Parties may seek joinder.
20. The Applicant also relies on sections 9(1) and 10(1) of the Fair Administrative Action Act, which it urges permit an aggrieved party to apply for judicial review without unreasonable delay and require courts to determine such applications without undue regard to procedural technicalities, thereby supporting the Court’s discretion to enlarge time. That these two sections supersede regulation 6 (1) of the Fair Administrative Action Rules.
21. It is also the Applicant’s case that any capital expenditure allegedly made by the 3 rd Respondent cannot legitimize an unlawful decision, and dismisses assertions that adverse orders would cause the 3 rd Respondent to withdraw investment from Kenya as an attempt to intimidate the Court. The Applicant therefore reiterates the prayers in the Originating Motion dated 4 th December 2025 and the Notice of Motion dated 10 th December 2025 and urges the Court to allow the applications.
The 1 st and 2 nd Respondent’s response
22. The 1 st and 2 nd Respondent’s filed a replying affidavit sworn on 30 th January 2026, by Gregory Kituku.
23. The 1 st and 2 nd Respondents state that Special Licence No. 221 was initially issued on 3 rd February 2005 to Sebimu Exploration and Mining Co. Ltd, and was subsequently transferred to IGE Kenya Ltd, then to Apex Africa Resources Ltd on 21 st February 2012, and finally to Mayfox Mining Company Ltd on 26 th March 2015. That the licence was renewed on 20 th March 2015 for two years until 20 th March 2017, after which the Mining Act, 2016 came into force, subjecting existing mineral rights to the transitional provisions under section 225 of the Act.
24. It is urged that Mayfox Mining Company Ltd thereafter applied for a prospecting licence under the new regime on 27 th September 2017, and its application was considered by the Mineral Rights Board on 19 th October 2017, which required it to submit additional documentation and meet outstanding obligations.
25. The Respondents further explain that although the Cabinet imposed a moratorium on the issuance of new mineral rights vide letter dated 2 nd December 2019, signed by the Head of Public Service, Joseph Kinyua addressed to the Cabinet Secretary for Mining, the moratorium did not affect existing licence holders such as Mayfox, who were expected to regularize their applications. That following the partial lifting of the moratorium in October 2023, Mayfox Mining Company Ltd resubmitted the required documents on 6 th November 2023.
26. According to the Respondents, during the 72 nd Mineral Rights Board meeting held on 13 th February 2024, Mayfox Mining Company Ltd application was recommended for rejection due to failure to meet the minimum statutory requirements, including compliance with exploration reporting standards. Further, that a 14-day notice issued on 4 th March 2024 required Mayfox Mining Company Ltd to submit technical exploration reports dating back to 2005, but the response received on 5 th March 2024 was considered inadequate.
27. The Respondents contend that on 3 rd April 2024, Mayfox Mining Company Ltd ’s licence was erroneously removed from the Online Mining Cadastre System due to an administrative or systemic oversight during the ongoing review process.
28. That as a result of that error, Lorado Company Limited , the applicant herein lodged Application No. 5455 on 10 th May 2024 over the same area. However, that upon discovery of the error, the Director of Mines invoked sections 193(a) and (b) of the Mining Act, which empower the Director to correct errors or omissions in the Cadastre, and on 13 th May 2024 reinstated Mayfox’s application and restored the area in the Cadastre System. It is the 1 st and 2 nd Respondent’s case that the Applicant was subsequently notified by a letter dated 14 th May 2024 that the area had appeared vacant due to a system error and that its application could not confer any rights over the area.
29. The Respondents maintain that the Ministry acted lawfully and within its statutory mandate under sections 20(1) and 193(a) and (b) of the Mining Act to safeguard the integrity of the mineral rights system and prevent double allocation. They further state that the Applicant’s application was predicated on the erroneous availability of the area and therefore did not create any legal entitlement.
30. The Respondents add that the Mineral Rights Board later reconsidered the Mayfox matter on 9 th April 2024 and recommended removal of its application from the Cadastre System, which was subsequently approved by the Cabinet Secretary. That once the area was properly freed following due process, new applications were lodged, including those by H-Nuo Kenya Company Limited and AHG Metals Kenya Limited, which were considered in accordance with the first-come-first-served principle under section 56 of the Mining Act.
31. The 1 st and 2 nd Respondents also state that the Applicant had participated in earlier proceedings in HC JR Misc. Cause No. E076 of 2024 as an Interested Party, and that after the withdrawal of that suit, the Ministry proceeded to process the mineral rights in accordance with the law, including consideration of objections under section 34 of the Mining Act. They maintain that the mineral rights have since been lawfully granted to other companies, which have already made substantial investments in reliance on the licences.
32. The Respondents therefore contend that the Applicant’s claim is founded on a technical error that was lawfully corrected and does not disclose any violation of rights warranting judicial review. They further argue that any order reversing the grants at this stage would prejudice the current rights holders and expose the Ministry to significant financial liability.
33. Accordingly, the 1 st and 2 nd Respondents oppose the Applicant’s prayers and maintain that their actions were lawful, undertaken in good faith, and in the public interest.
The 3 rd Respondent’s response
34. The 3 rd Respondent filed a Replying Affidavit sworn on 4 th February 2026 by John Francis Myklusch. According to the 3 rd Respondent, the present applications amount to a collateral attack on the ruling delivered on 6 th November 2025, which upheld and gave effect to the Notice of Withdrawal dated 8 th August 2025 filed by Mayfox Mining Company Limited in HCMSCIR No. E076 of 2024. That the ruling finally disposed of the issues then before the Court, and this Honourable Court cannot sit on appeal over, revisit, or review the decision of a court of concurrent jurisdiction.
35. It is urged that the doctrines of res judicata, finality of litigation, and functus officio firmly prohibit such an indirect or collateral challenge. Further, that the instant applications are misconceived and amount to an impermissible attempt to reopen a matter already settled by a competent court.
36. That on 28 th March 2025 via a Gazette Notice No. 3874 the 1 st Respondent notified the general public that the 3 rd Respondent had applied for a Mining License over part of the cadaster area previously covered by Mayfox Mining Company Limited special prospecting license No. 221. That the Gazette Notice also referred to an application by H-Nuo Kenya Company Limited.
37. The 3 rd Respondent states that in early 2022 the AHG Group proposed acquiring the cadaster area from Mayfox t hrough a Kenyan special purpose vehicle, Development Collective Kenya Limited (DCKL) , which was incorporated for that purpose. That, Mayfox had held the cadaster area for about 7 years, and in March 2022 , AHG Group and Mayfox began commercial negotiations and signed a non-binding Term Sheet dated 23 rd March 2022 outlining key commercial terms, with the understanding that they would later execute a Licence Transfer Agreement (LTA) .
38. It is urged that in April 2022 , AHG Group invested considerable funds towards the proposed acquisition, and between March and August 2022 the parties and their advisors negotiated the LTA to effect the transfer of SPL 221 from Mayfox to DCKL . However, that on 25 th August 2022 , in an undated letter from Mayfox, DCKL was informed that although SPL 221 had been renewed until 31 st January 2017 under the repealed Mining Act , the Minister had allowed licenses such as SPL 221 to run six years beyond that renewal period, meaning the licence would expire on 31 st January 2023 .
39. That the proposed commercial transaction ultimately did not materialise . The 2 nd Respondent rejected Mayfox’s renewal application for SPL 221 for lack of requisite documents , confirming that the licence had not been duly renewed and therefore could not be transferred to DCKL . It is the 3 rd respondent’s case that the licence was subsequently removed from the online mining cadaster system , opening the area to fresh applications.
40. The 3 rd Respondent asserts that, from the Director of Mines’ affidavit in High Court Judicial Review Misc. Application No. E076 of 2024 (Mayfox Mining Limited v Cabinet Secretary for Mining & 3 Others) , the processing of the 3 rd Respondent’s application was procedural and above board .
41. The 3 rd Respondent further states that under Regulation 6(1) of the Fair Administrative Action Rules, 2024 , an aggrieved party has six(6) weeks to institute judicial review proceedings. Consequently, that the Applicant had until 26 th June 2024 to challenge the Director’s communication of 14 th May 2024 , but it neither filed proceedings within that period nor sought extension of time.
42. That instead, the Applicant only attempted to participate later when Mayfox filed the previous Judicial Review (Misc. Application No. E076 of 2024) by lodging a joinder Application dated 26 th September 2025 , thereby relying on proceedings initiated by Mayfox. The 3 rd Respondent argues that the Applicant therefore never had enforceable or justiciable rights arising from the Director’s communication and cannot now revive rights it never possessed by seeking extension of time.
43. The 3 rd Respondent further contends that the Applicant chose to join the earlier proceedings which were withdrawn, as an Interested Party , despite knowing that an Interested Party plays a peripheral role in judicial review proceedings. That under Regulation 9 of the Fair Administrative Action (Judicial Review Procedure) Rules , the Applicant could instead have filed a separate judicial review application for consolidation or sought joinder as a substantive respondent , which would have allowed it to seek substantive reliefs.
44. It is urged that following the collapse of the LTA transaction, the AHG Group decided to apply afresh for a mining licence through the 3 rd Respondent . The 3 rd Respondent, led by co-director Tarayia Kores , is said to have applied for a mining licence over the cadaster area formerly covered by SPL 221 , which was then open to public applications. It is urged that the application was approved by the Mineral Rights Board , leading to the Gazette Notice and the issuance of the mining licenses to the 3 rd Respondent on 18 th September 2025.
45. The 3 rd Respondent states that both it and the AHG Group have made substantial financial investments in the project, and that with the 2 nd Respondent’s permission, it mobilised drilling and geology teams and equipment to the cadaster area.
46. Further the 3 rd Respondent asserts that between March and April 2025 , it spent about USD 230,000 , and the total investment has since risen to approximately USD 1,300,000 . It is also urged that maintaining teams and equipment at the site costs about USD 100,000 per month , and halting or demobilising operations would result in significant unrecoverable losses and additional costs arising from terminating commitments to deployed drilling and geology teams.
47. The 3 rd Respondent further avers that suspending or revoking its licenses would also have serious consequences for the Turkana community , including the indefinite suspension of employment opportunities for unemployed and impoverished residents, the possible withdrawal of the AHG Group’s investment from Kenya to other parts of Africa or beyond , and the loss of employment opportunities for thousands of local residents who rely on such work to support their families. The 3 rd Respondent further contends that granting the relief sought would effectively reward a disgruntled applicant who approached the court without disclosing material facts in pursuit of selfish commercial gain.
Submissions
48. The application was canvassed by way of oral submissions made before the court on 12 th December 2026. However, the 3 rd Respondent also filed skeletal written submissions erroneously dated 11 th February 2025 instead of 11 th February 2026, which the court has also considered.
49. Mr. Kimathi counsel for the applicant made oral highlights that from the date of the said removal on 14 th May 2025, to the date of filing of this matter on 10 th December 2025, a period of 18 months had elapsed, and that within that period, the applicant has been in contentious engagement with the Respondents in various ways. It was urged that the delay in filing these proceedings was occasioned by the Applicant’s participation in Judicial Review Application No. Misc. E076/2024.
50. That the Applicant herein lodged an objection to the grant of those licenses on 6 th May 2025 but the 1 st Respondents neither responded to that objection, nor took any action. Counsel also submitted that as at the time, parties were still in court in JR. E076/2024 whose Ruling on its withdrawal was rendered on 6 th November 2025 hence the delay had been explained.
51. Counsel reiterated that the application 5455 was made on 10 th May 2024 hence it precedes any other applications that were lodged thereafter, for purposes of Section 56 of the Mining Act as regards, first come, first served basis.
52. Further, that the 1 st Respondent is in violation of Section 34(4)(5) of the Mining Act and Section 4 of the Fair Administrative Action Act, the said grant is therefore null and void ab initio.
53. He also submitted that the removal of the Applicant’s application from the cadre system was irregular and unlawful as evidenced by Annex G.K. 11 & GK 12. That on the alleged empowerment of the 2 nd Respondent under Section 20(1) of the Mining Act there was no such provision of law hence he exceeded his powers. Mr. Kimathi stated that the 1 st and 2 nd Respondents violated the law in their actions against the Applicant.
54. Mr. Munene, counsel for the 1 st and 2 nd Respondents submitted that the application was in the wrong forum as espoused under Section 157 of the Mining Act. He submitted that the Section provides that anybody aggrieved by the decision of the Cabinet Secretary has to file an appeal to the High Court.
55. That, the Act having provided for an alternative mode of dispute Resolution mechanism, the instant application offends Section 9(2) of the Fair Administrative Action Act which uses the term “shall” and Section 9(4 ) which gives an allowance for an exemption on an application by the applicant. He submitted that there was no application for exemption. That the procedure is under Section 155 & 156 of the Mining Act, and that all has not been exhausted.
56. Counsel submitted that the submissions by Mr. Kimathi were to be considered in an appeal and not in the Judicial Review. Further that the three grounds for Judicial Review had not been established to warrant the reliefs sought.
57. Mr. Munyua, counsel for the 3 rd Respondent submitted that the Applicant undertook in a consent dated 13 th November 2025 not to challenge the decision of 6 th November 2025. That the Applicant never challenged the decision of 14 th May 2024 until another aggrieved party lodged a Judicial Review case. Counsel urged that the application is brought after an unreasonable delay, and that it was unfair on the part of the 3 rd Respondent as litigation could not be conducted piecemeal. He relied on the case of IEBC vs Maina Kiai . He reiterated that the application was res judicata JR E076/2024.
58. Mr. Munyua submitted that the principle of first come first served cannot apply where the application is premature and that the granting of the Mining licenses to the 3 rd Respondent was procedurally done by the 1 st and 2 nd Respondents. Mr. Munyua further submitted that the action complained of does not breach any fair administrative action. Additionally, that the applicant was notified of the error which was corrected. Counsel submitted that the reliefs sought are not available and to support this position relied on the case of KNEC vs Geoffrey Gathenji & R vs The National Treasury and Economic Planning ex parte Law Society of Kenya [2025] eKLR.
59. In a rejoinder, Mr. Kimathi for the applicant submitted that the Mining Act does not mandate parties to engage into the mechanisms under the Act and that Section 157 of the Act only applies to a person who elects to resolve the dispute through the Cabinet Secretary. That Section 9(2) & (4) of the Fair Administrative Action Act does not apply to the circumstances of this case. He also submitted that the consent of 13 th November 2025 was about costs in that suit which were awarded to the Interested Party as negotiated to avoid going into the taxation.
60. On joinder of the 3 rd Respondent and other parties, it was submitted that Judicial Review was brought against public authorities and any other party interested in the matter can apply to be enjoined.
Analysis and Determination
61. Having carefully considered the pleadings, affidavits and submissions by the parties, this Court is of the view that the following issues arise for determination:
i. Whether these proceedings are procedurally competent
ii. Whether the actions of the 1 st and 2 nd Respondents in expunging the Applicant’s Application No. 5455 from the Mining Cadastre System and subsequently processing and granting mineral rights over the disputed area were lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair under the Mining Act.
iii. Whether the Applicant has established grounds for the grant of the judicial review remedies sought.
iv. What orders should this Court make
Whether these proceedings are procedurally competent
62. The 1 st Respondent contends that the Applicant ought to have first exhausted the dispute resolution mechanism under section 154 of the Mining Act through the office of the Cabinet Secretary before approaching this Court.
63. The 3 rd Respondent contends that the present proceedings are incompetent as they amount to a collateral attack on the ruling delivered on 6 th November 2025 in Mayfox Mining Co. Ltd v Cabinet Secretary for Mining & Others . It is argued that the said ruling upheld the Notice of Withdrawal dated 8 th August 2025 filed by Mayfox Mining Company Limited and thereby disposed of the issues then before the Court. According to the 3 rd Respondent, the doctrines of res judicata, finality of litigation and functus officio preclude this Court, being a court of concurrent jurisdiction, from revisiting matters that were already settled in those proceedings.
64. The 3 rd Respondent further argues that the Applicant had participated in the previous judicial review proceedings as an Interested Party and was therefore aware of the nature and scope of those proceedings. It maintains that an Interested Party plays a peripheral role in judicial review proceedings, and that the Applicant had procedural options available to it, including filing a separate judicial review application or seeking joinder as a substantive respondent. That having failed to pursue those options, the Applicant cannot now attempt to revive the dispute through the present proceedings.
65. Additionally, the 3 rd Respondent argues that the Applicant’s challenge to the Director of Mines’ communication dated 14 th May 2024 is time-barred under the Fair Administrative Action (Judicial Review Procedure) Rules, 2024 , which require an aggrieved party to institute judicial review proceedings within six weeks of the impugned administrative decision. It is urged that
66. The Applicant maintains that the ruling delivered on 6 th November 2025 in the earlier proceedings merely addressed the withdrawal of that suit and did not determine the su
[...truncated]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
JUDICIAL REVIEW DIVISION
JUDICIAL REVIEW APPLICATION NO. E400 OF 2025
LORADO COMPANY LIMITED......................................... APPLICANT
VERSUS
CABINET SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF MINING …………………………….1 ST RESPONDENT
DIRECTOR OF MINES AND GEOLOGY.................2 ND RESPONDENT
AHG METALS KENYA LIMITED ............................3 RD RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
1. Before this Court for determination is Originating Motion dated 4 th December 2025. The motion is supported by the affidavit of Moses Njiru Njeru sworn on even date. The application seeks the following reliefs:
a. That a declaration do issue to the effect that the removal of application for a prospecting licence no. 5455 from the mining cadastre system by the 2 nd Respondent was and is invalid [ultra vires] and void ab initio and of no effect.
b. That an ORDER OF MANDAMUS do issue against the 1st and 2 nd Respondents compelling them to reinstate the applicant’s application for a prospecting licence no. 5455 on the mining cadastre system.
c. That an ORDER OF CERTIORARI do issue to remove to the High Court the decision of the 1 st and 2 nd Respondents to grant mining licenses No’s ML/2025/0212 and ML/2025/0237 to AHG METALS KENYA LIMITED for the purpose of the said decision and the resulting licenses being quashed.
d. That an order of stay be issued on the operation and validity of mining licenses No’s ML/2025/0212 and ML/2025/0237 as issued by the 1st and 2 nd Respondents to AHG METALS KENYA LIMITED pending the hearing and determination of these proceedings.
e. Costs of this application be provided for.
f. Such further and other relief that the Honourable Court may deem just and expedient to grant.
2. The Applicant’s case is that on 10 th May, 2024 , it lodged an application for grant of a prospecting licence on the Mining Cadastre System and was assigned reference number App No. 5455 . That at the time of lodging the application, the area applied for was vacant. It is the Applicant’s case that it uploaded all the required documents, and made the necessary payment to the Ministry of Mining, Blue Economy and Maritime Affairs as prescribed by law.
3. The Applicant states that the acceptance of Application No. 5455 by the Cadastre System on 10 th May, 2024 was sufficient proof that the area was free, since the system cannot accept another application for a mineral right over an already allocated area.
4. However, that by a letter dated 14 th May, 2024 , the Director of Mines wrote to Mr. Njiru as Cadastre Agent stating that Application No. 5455 had been accepted erroneously because the area was already covered by mineral right No. 221 held by Mayfox Mining Company Limited.
5. It is urged that the Director of Mines then expunged the applicant’s Application No. 5455 from the system and replaced it with Prospecting Licence No. 221 in favour of Mayfox Mining Company Limited. The Applicant found this action surprising because the Cadastre System indicated that Mayfox Mining Company Ltd.’s licence was applied for on 11 th July 2003, granted on 3 rd February 2005 , and expired on 31 st January 2017 . The Applicant contends that replacing Lorado’s application with an expired licence was illegal and beyond the Director’s powers and mandate.
6. That anxious that an injustice was being perpetrated, the Applicant wrote to the Director of Mines on 15 th May, 2024 requesting investigations into the expunging of their application. It is urged that no response was received. Subsequently, that the Applicant discovered that the contested area had been partitioned into three blocks and apportioned to two new companies: H-NUO Kenya Company Limited and AHG Metals Kenya Limited, as follows: App No/5677 belonging to AHG Metals Kenya Limited, covering 278 Cadastre blocks , applied for on 5 th July 2024; App No/5681 belonging to H-Nuo Kenya Company Limited, covering 264 Cadastre blocks, applied for on 5 th July 2024 ;App No/5683 belonging to AHG Metals Kenya Limited .
7. This development is said to have raised suspicion regarding the handling of mineral rights by officials within the Ministry responsible for Mining. On 7 th July, 2024, it is stated that the Applicant petitioned the Cabinet Secretary in the Ministry of Mining, Blue Economy and Maritime Affairs and copied various investigative agencies, requesting investigations into suspected dishonesty by Government officials.
8. The Applicant relies on the Mining Act, which provides that applications for mineral rights are considered on a first come first serve basis and maintains that Application No. 5455 by Lorado Company Limited ought to have been considered before App No/5677, App No/5681, and App No/5683 .
9. The Applicant states that Mayfox Mining Company Limited filed suit in MILIMANI H.C JR MISC CAUSE NO. E076 OF 2024 MAYFOX MINING CO. LTD -VS- CABINET SECRETARY; MINISTRY OF MINING AND OTHERS, seeking; An order of certiorari to quash the decision contained in the 2 nd Respondent’s letter dated 5 th June, 2024 rejecting renewal of its licence and removing the mining area from the cadastre system, an order of prohibition restraining the 1 st and 2 nd Respondents from removing the mining area pending hearing and determination, and an order of mandamus compelling approval of its licence pursuant to the Mining Act.
10. The Applicant herein is said to have successfully applied to be enjoined as an Interested Party in that suit, and AHG Metals Kenya Limited was also enjoined as a Respondent.
11. That while the proceedings were pending, on 20 th March, 2025 , the 1 st Respondent issued notice of his intention to grant a mining licence to AHG Metals Kenya Limited under Application Ref. ML/2025/0237 at the lapse of 42 days . That the Notice was published in the Kenya Gazette on 28 th March, 2025 under Notice No. 3874. According, to the Applicant on 6 th May, 2025, the Applicant objected to the intended grant, but received no response from the 1 st or 2 nd Respondents.
12. That on 8 th August, 2025 , the Applicant in the said suit filed a notice of withdrawal before the matter was heard and determined. The Applicant herein objected to the withdrawal, citing pending issues, but on 6 th November, 2025 , the court upheld the withdrawal. Meanwhile, on 18 th September, 2025, the 1 st and 2 nd Respondents granted Licences No. ML/2025/0212 and ML/2025/0237 to AHG Metals Kenya Limited over the disputed area.
13. The Applicant also filed a Further Affidavit sworn by Moses Njiru Njeru on 9 th February 2026, further asserting in deposition that under sections 32(1) and 33(2) of the Mining Act , the Cabinet Secretary may grant, deny or revoke a mineral right upon the recommendation of the Mineral Rights Board. The Applicant states that the 1 st and 2 nd Respondents confirmed in their Replying Affidavit that on 9 th April 2024 the Mineral Rights Board recommended the removal from the Mining Cadastre System of a previous application by Mayfox Company Ltd, and that the Cabinet Secretary approved that removal on 9 th May 2024.
14. According to the Applicant, this meant that all statutory steps required under the Mining Act had been completed and the area was therefore legally free when the Applicant lodged its application. The Applicant maintains that the allegation by the Respondents that the acceptance of its application was erroneous or caused by a system error is false, since there is no provision in the Mining Act allowing reinstatement or reconsideration of a removed application, and once the earlier application had been removed the Mineral Rights Board and the Cabinet Secretary became functus officio.
15. The Applicant further contends that the provisions of section 193(a) and (b) of the Mining Act concerning correction of errors in the register do not apply as there was no error, inaccurate or unlawful entry upon the register to warrant a correction by the 2 nd Respondent, and that section 20(1) does not confer upon the 2 nd Respondent discretion to reinstate an application that has been removed or expunge a lawfully lodged application.
16. The Applicant also avers that after lodging its application and complying with the statutory requirements, the application ought to have been placed before the Mineral Rights Board for consideration and recommendation to the Cabinet Secretary, and that any decision thereon should have been communicated by the Cabinet Secretary, and not the 2 nd Respondent.
17. The Applicant also questions the claim of an alleged system error, noting that a director of the 3 rd Respondent allegedly received a notification when the Applicant lodged its application, which the Applicant argues suggests bias or preferential treatment by the 1 st and 2 nd Respondents.
18. In response to the Respondents’ affidavits regarding the Notice of Motion dated 10 th December 2025, the Applicant states that the ruling delivered on 6 th November 2025 in HCJRMISC/E076/2024 only addressed the withdrawal of that suit and did not determine the substantive dispute, and therefore the present proceedings are neither an appeal nor barred by res judicata.
19. The Applicant further states that judicial review proceedings are properly instituted against the public bodies responsible for the impugned administrative action and that failure to join the 3 rd Respondent at the outset does not amount to concealment, since Interested Parties may seek joinder.
20. The Applicant also relies on sections 9(1) and 10(1) of the Fair Administrative Action Act, which it urges permit an aggrieved party to apply for judicial review without unreasonable delay and require courts to determine such applications without undue regard to procedural technicalities, thereby supporting the Court’s discretion to enlarge time. That these two sections supersede regulation 6 (1) of the Fair Administrative Action Rules.
21. It is also the Applicant’s case that any capital expenditure allegedly made by the 3 rd Respondent cannot legitimize an unlawful decision, and dismisses assertions that adverse orders would cause the 3 rd Respondent to withdraw investment from Kenya as an attempt to intimidate the Court. The Applicant therefore reiterates the prayers in the Originating Motion dated 4 th December 2025 and the Notice of Motion dated 10 th December 2025 and urges the Court to allow the applications.
The 1 st and 2 nd Respondent’s response
22. The 1 st and 2 nd Respondent’s filed a replying affidavit sworn on 30 th January 2026, by Gregory Kituku.
23. The 1 st and 2 nd Respondents state that Special Licence No. 221 was initially issued on 3 rd February 2005 to Sebimu Exploration and Mining Co. Ltd, and was subsequently transferred to IGE Kenya Ltd, then to Apex Africa Resources Ltd on 21 st February 2012, and finally to Mayfox Mining Company Ltd on 26 th March 2015. That the licence was renewed on 20 th March 2015 for two years until 20 th March 2017, after which the Mining Act, 2016 came into force, subjecting existing mineral rights to the transitional provisions under section 225 of the Act.
24. It is urged that Mayfox Mining Company Ltd thereafter applied for a prospecting licence under the new regime on 27 th September 2017, and its application was considered by the Mineral Rights Board on 19 th October 2017, which required it to submit additional documentation and meet outstanding obligations.
25. The Respondents further explain that although the Cabinet imposed a moratorium on the issuance of new mineral rights vide letter dated 2 nd December 2019, signed by the Head of Public Service, Joseph Kinyua addressed to the Cabinet Secretary for Mining, the moratorium did not affect existing licence holders such as Mayfox, who were expected to regularize their applications. That following the partial lifting of the moratorium in October 2023, Mayfox Mining Company Ltd resubmitted the required documents on 6 th November 2023.
26. According to the Respondents, during the 72 nd Mineral Rights Board meeting held on 13 th February 2024, Mayfox Mining Company Ltd application was recommended for rejection due to failure to meet the minimum statutory requirements, including compliance with exploration reporting standards. Further, that a 14-day notice issued on 4 th March 2024 required Mayfox Mining Company Ltd to submit technical exploration reports dating back to 2005, but the response received on 5 th March 2024 was considered inadequate.
27. The Respondents contend that on 3 rd April 2024, Mayfox Mining Company Ltd ’s licence was erroneously removed from the Online Mining Cadastre System due to an administrative or systemic oversight during the ongoing review process.
28. That as a result of that error, Lorado Company Limited , the applicant herein lodged Application No. 5455 on 10 th May 2024 over the same area. However, that upon discovery of the error, the Director of Mines invoked sections 193(a) and (b) of the Mining Act, which empower the Director to correct errors or omissions in the Cadastre, and on 13 th May 2024 reinstated Mayfox’s application and restored the area in the Cadastre System. It is the 1 st and 2 nd Respondent’s case that the Applicant was subsequently notified by a letter dated 14 th May 2024 that the area had appeared vacant due to a system error and that its application could not confer any rights over the area.
29. The Respondents maintain that the Ministry acted lawfully and within its statutory mandate under sections 20(1) and 193(a) and (b) of the Mining Act to safeguard the integrity of the mineral rights system and prevent double allocation. They further state that the Applicant’s application was predicated on the erroneous availability of the area and therefore did not create any legal entitlement.
30. The Respondents add that the Mineral Rights Board later reconsidered the Mayfox matter on 9 th April 2024 and recommended removal of its application from the Cadastre System, which was subsequently approved by the Cabinet Secretary. That once the area was properly freed following due process, new applications were lodged, including those by H-Nuo Kenya Company Limited and AHG Metals Kenya Limited, which were considered in accordance with the first-come-first-served principle under section 56 of the Mining Act.
31. The 1 st and 2 nd Respondents also state that the Applicant had participated in earlier proceedings in HC JR Misc. Cause No. E076 of 2024 as an Interested Party, and that after the withdrawal of that suit, the Ministry proceeded to process the mineral rights in accordance with the law, including consideration of objections under section 34 of the Mining Act. They maintain that the mineral rights have since been lawfully granted to other companies, which have already made substantial investments in reliance on the licences.
32. The Respondents therefore contend that the Applicant’s claim is founded on a technical error that was lawfully corrected and does not disclose any violation of rights warranting judicial review. They further argue that any order reversing the grants at this stage would prejudice the current rights holders and expose the Ministry to significant financial liability.
33. Accordingly, the 1 st and 2 nd Respondents oppose the Applicant’s prayers and maintain that their actions were lawful, undertaken in good faith, and in the public interest.
The 3 rd Respondent’s response
34. The 3 rd Respondent filed a Replying Affidavit sworn on 4 th February 2026 by John Francis Myklusch. According to the 3 rd Respondent, the present applications amount to a collateral attack on the ruling delivered on 6 th November 2025, which upheld and gave effect to the Notice of Withdrawal dated 8 th August 2025 filed by Mayfox Mining Company Limited in HCMSCIR No. E076 of 2024. That the ruling finally disposed of the issues then before the Court, and this Honourable Court cannot sit on appeal over, revisit, or review the decision of a court of concurrent jurisdiction.
35. It is urged that the doctrines of res judicata, finality of litigation, and functus officio firmly prohibit such an indirect or collateral challenge. Further, that the instant applications are misconceived and amount to an impermissible attempt to reopen a matter already settled by a competent court.
36. That on 28 th March 2025 via a Gazette Notice No. 3874 the 1 st Respondent notified the general public that the 3 rd Respondent had applied for a Mining License over part of the cadaster area previously covered by Mayfox Mining Company Limited special prospecting license No. 221. That the Gazette Notice also referred to an application by H-Nuo Kenya Company Limited.
37. The 3 rd Respondent states that in early 2022 the AHG Group proposed acquiring the cadaster area from Mayfox t hrough a Kenyan special purpose vehicle, Development Collective Kenya Limited (DCKL) , which was incorporated for that purpose. That, Mayfox had held the cadaster area for about 7 years, and in March 2022 , AHG Group and Mayfox began commercial negotiations and signed a non-binding Term Sheet dated 23 rd March 2022 outlining key commercial terms, with the understanding that they would later execute a Licence Transfer Agreement (LTA) .
38. It is urged that in April 2022 , AHG Group invested considerable funds towards the proposed acquisition, and between March and August 2022 the parties and their advisors negotiated the LTA to effect the transfer of SPL 221 from Mayfox to DCKL . However, that on 25 th August 2022 , in an undated letter from Mayfox, DCKL was informed that although SPL 221 had been renewed until 31 st January 2017 under the repealed Mining Act , the Minister had allowed licenses such as SPL 221 to run six years beyond that renewal period, meaning the licence would expire on 31 st January 2023 .
39. That the proposed commercial transaction ultimately did not materialise . The 2 nd Respondent rejected Mayfox’s renewal application for SPL 221 for lack of requisite documents , confirming that the licence had not been duly renewed and therefore could not be transferred to DCKL . It is the 3 rd respondent’s case that the licence was subsequently removed from the online mining cadaster system , opening the area to fresh applications.
40. The 3 rd Respondent asserts that, from the Director of Mines’ affidavit in High Court Judicial Review Misc. Application No. E076 of 2024 (Mayfox Mining Limited v Cabinet Secretary for Mining & 3 Others) , the processing of the 3 rd Respondent’s application was procedural and above board .
41. The 3 rd Respondent further states that under Regulation 6(1) of the Fair Administrative Action Rules, 2024 , an aggrieved party has six(6) weeks to institute judicial review proceedings. Consequently, that the Applicant had until 26 th June 2024 to challenge the Director’s communication of 14 th May 2024 , but it neither filed proceedings within that period nor sought extension of time.
42. That instead, the Applicant only attempted to participate later when Mayfox filed the previous Judicial Review (Misc. Application No. E076 of 2024) by lodging a joinder Application dated 26 th September 2025 , thereby relying on proceedings initiated by Mayfox. The 3 rd Respondent argues that the Applicant therefore never had enforceable or justiciable rights arising from the Director’s communication and cannot now revive rights it never possessed by seeking extension of time.
43. The 3 rd Respondent further contends that the Applicant chose to join the earlier proceedings which were withdrawn, as an Interested Party , despite knowing that an Interested Party plays a peripheral role in judicial review proceedings. That under Regulation 9 of the Fair Administrative Action (Judicial Review Procedure) Rules , the Applicant could instead have filed a separate judicial review application for consolidation or sought joinder as a substantive respondent , which would have allowed it to seek substantive reliefs.
44. It is urged that following the collapse of the LTA transaction, the AHG Group decided to apply afresh for a mining licence through the 3 rd Respondent . The 3 rd Respondent, led by co-director Tarayia Kores , is said to have applied for a mining licence over the cadaster area formerly covered by SPL 221 , which was then open to public applications. It is urged that the application was approved by the Mineral Rights Board , leading to the Gazette Notice and the issuance of the mining licenses to the 3 rd Respondent on 18 th September 2025.
45. The 3 rd Respondent states that both it and the AHG Group have made substantial financial investments in the project, and that with the 2 nd Respondent’s permission, it mobilised drilling and geology teams and equipment to the cadaster area.
46. Further the 3 rd Respondent asserts that between March and April 2025 , it spent about USD 230,000 , and the total investment has since risen to approximately USD 1,300,000 . It is also urged that maintaining teams and equipment at the site costs about USD 100,000 per month , and halting or demobilising operations would result in significant unrecoverable losses and additional costs arising from terminating commitments to deployed drilling and geology teams.
47. The 3 rd Respondent further avers that suspending or revoking its licenses would also have serious consequences for the Turkana community , including the indefinite suspension of employment opportunities for unemployed and impoverished residents, the possible withdrawal of the AHG Group’s investment from Kenya to other parts of Africa or beyond , and the loss of employment opportunities for thousands of local residents who rely on such work to support their families. The 3 rd Respondent further contends that granting the relief sought would effectively reward a disgruntled applicant who approached the court without disclosing material facts in pursuit of selfish commercial gain.
Submissions
48. The application was canvassed by way of oral submissions made before the court on 12 th December 2026. However, the 3 rd Respondent also filed skeletal written submissions erroneously dated 11 th February 2025 instead of 11 th February 2026, which the court has also considered.
49. Mr. Kimathi counsel for the applicant made oral highlights that from the date of the said removal on 14 th May 2025, to the date of filing of this matter on 10 th December 2025, a period of 18 months had elapsed, and that within that period, the applicant has been in contentious engagement with the Respondents in various ways. It was urged that the delay in filing these proceedings was occasioned by the Applicant’s participation in Judicial Review Application No. Misc. E076/2024.
50. That the Applicant herein lodged an objection to the grant of those licenses on 6 th May 2025 but the 1 st Respondents neither responded to that objection, nor took any action. Counsel also submitted that as at the time, parties were still in court in JR. E076/2024 whose Ruling on its withdrawal was rendered on 6 th November 2025 hence the delay had been explained.
51. Counsel reiterated that the application 5455 was made on 10 th May 2024 hence it precedes any other applications that were lodged thereafter, for purposes of Section 56 of the Mining Act as regards, first come, first served basis.
52. Further, that the 1 st Respondent is in violation of Section 34(4)(5) of the Mining Act and Section 4 of the Fair Administrative Action Act, the said grant is therefore null and void ab initio.
53. He also submitted that the removal of the Applicant’s application from the cadre system was irregular and unlawful as evidenced by Annex G.K. 11 & GK 12. That on the alleged empowerment of the 2 nd Respondent under Section 20(1) of the Mining Act there was no such provision of law hence he exceeded his powers. Mr. Kimathi stated that the 1 st and 2 nd Respondents violated the law in their actions against the Applicant.
54. Mr. Munene, counsel for the 1 st and 2 nd Respondents submitted that the application was in the wrong forum as espoused under Section 157 of the Mining Act. He submitted that the Section provides that anybody aggrieved by the decision of the Cabinet Secretary has to file an appeal to the High Court.
55. That, the Act having provided for an alternative mode of dispute Resolution mechanism, the instant application offends Section 9(2) of the Fair Administrative Action Act which uses the term “shall” and Section 9(4 ) which gives an allowance for an exemption on an application by the applicant. He submitted that there was no application for exemption. That the procedure is under Section 155 & 156 of the Mining Act, and that all has not been exhausted.
56. Counsel submitted that the submissions by Mr. Kimathi were to be considered in an appeal and not in the Judicial Review. Further that the three grounds for Judicial Review had not been established to warrant the reliefs sought.
57. Mr. Munyua, counsel for the 3 rd Respondent submitted that the Applicant undertook in a consent dated 13 th November 2025 not to challenge the decision of 6 th November 2025. That the Applicant never challenged the decision of 14 th May 2024 until another aggrieved party lodged a Judicial Review case. Counsel urged that the application is brought after an unreasonable delay, and that it was unfair on the part of the 3 rd Respondent as litigation could not be conducted piecemeal. He relied on the case of IEBC vs Maina Kiai . He reiterated that the application was res judicata JR E076/2024.
58. Mr. Munyua submitted that the principle of first come first served cannot apply where the application is premature and that the granting of the Mining licenses to the 3 rd Respondent was procedurally done by the 1 st and 2 nd Respondents. Mr. Munyua further submitted that the action complained of does not breach any fair administrative action. Additionally, that the applicant was notified of the error which was corrected. Counsel submitted that the reliefs sought are not available and to support this position relied on the case of KNEC vs Geoffrey Gathenji & R vs The National Treasury and Economic Planning ex parte Law Society of Kenya [2025] eKLR.
59. In a rejoinder, Mr. Kimathi for the applicant submitted that the Mining Act does not mandate parties to engage into the mechanisms under the Act and that Section 157 of the Act only applies to a person who elects to resolve the dispute through the Cabinet Secretary. That Section 9(2) & (4) of the Fair Administrative Action Act does not apply to the circumstances of this case. He also submitted that the consent of 13 th November 2025 was about costs in that suit which were awarded to the Interested Party as negotiated to avoid going into the taxation.
60. On joinder of the 3 rd Respondent and other parties, it was submitted that Judicial Review was brought against public authorities and any other party interested in the matter can apply to be enjoined.
Analysis and Determination
61. Having carefully considered the pleadings, affidavits and submissions by the parties, this Court is of the view that the following issues arise for determination:
i. Whether these proceedings are procedurally competent
ii. Whether the actions of the 1 st and 2 nd Respondents in expunging the Applicant’s Application No. 5455 from the Mining Cadastre System and subsequently processing and granting mineral rights over the disputed area were lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair under the Mining Act.
iii. Whether the Applicant has established grounds for the grant of the judicial review remedies sought.
iv. What orders should this Court make
Whether these proceedings are procedurally competent
62. The 1 st Respondent contends that the Applicant ought to have first exhausted the dispute resolution mechanism under section 154 of the Mining Act through the office of the Cabinet Secretary before approaching this Court.
63. The 3 rd Respondent contends that the present proceedings are incompetent as they amount to a collateral attack on the ruling delivered on 6 th November 2025 in Mayfox Mining Co. Ltd v Cabinet Secretary for Mining & Others . It is argued that the said ruling upheld the Notice of Withdrawal dated 8 th August 2025 filed by Mayfox Mining Company Limited and thereby disposed of the issues then before the Court. According to the 3 rd Respondent, the doctrines of res judicata, finality of litigation and functus officio preclude this Court, being a court of concurrent jurisdiction, from revisiting matters that were already settled in those proceedings.
64. The 3 rd Respondent further argues that the Applicant had participated in the previous judicial review proceedings as an Interested Party and was therefore aware of the nature and scope of those proceedings. It maintains that an Interested Party plays a peripheral role in judicial review proceedings, and that the Applicant had procedural options available to it, including filing a separate judicial review application or seeking joinder as a substantive respondent. That having failed to pursue those options, the Applicant cannot now attempt to revive the dispute through the present proceedings.
65. Additionally, the 3 rd Respondent argues that the Applicant’s challenge to the Director of Mines’ communication dated 14 th May 2024 is time-barred under the Fair Administrative Action (Judicial Review Procedure) Rules, 2024 , which require an aggrieved party to institute judicial review proceedings within six weeks of the impugned administrative decision. It is urged that
66. The Applicant maintains that the ruling delivered on 6 th November 2025 in the earlier proceedings merely addressed the withdrawal of that suit and did not determine the su
[...truncated]