abusesaffiliationarrow-downarrow-leftarrow-rightarrow-upattack-typeburgerchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-upClock iconclosedeletedevelopment-povertydiscriminationdollardownloademailenvironmentexternal-linkfacebookfiltergenderglobegroupshealthC4067174-3DD9-4B9E-AD64-284FDAAE6338@1xinformation-outlineinformationinstagraminvestment-trade-globalisationissueslabourlanguagesShapeCombined Shapeline, chart, up, arrow, graphLinkedInlocationmap-pinminusnewsorganisationotheroverviewpluspreviewArtboard 185profilerefreshIconnewssearchsecurityPathStock downStock steadyStock uptagticktooltiptwitteruniversalityweb

這頁面沒有繁體中文版本,現以English顯示

內容有以下的語言版本: English, español, français

法律訴訟

2012年9月9日

Anjin Investments, Marange Resources & Diamond Mining Corporation lawsuit (re water pollution)

狀態: ONGOING

提訴日期
2012年9月9日
未知
社區
申訴地點: 辛巴威
事發地點: 辛巴威

企業

Sources

Snapshot: In September 2012, Zimbabwe Environmental Law Association and a group of Zimbabwean villagers living along the Save River filed a request for a court order to stop Anjin Investments, Marange Resources, and Diamond Mining Corporation from discharging untreated waste material into the Save river.

Factual Background

Anjin Investments, Marange Resources and Diamond Mining Corporation are mining companies involved in diamond exploration and mining in the Marange communal lands. The companies have been accused of discharging untreated waste material into the Odzi, Singwizi and Save rivers. These discharges have heavily polluted the rivers, causing them to become “silted, muddied, dirty and loaded with chemical and metal deposits including iron, chromium and nickel”.

Villagers living on the banks of these rivers heavily depend on the rivers for their subsistence (e.g. using the water for drinking, fishing and watering livestock). However, as a result of the pollution, the river water is no longer fit for such purposes. The pollution has also destroyed aquatic life and disturbed the ecosystem in the rivers. Lastly, a biological and chemical study carried out by the University of Zimbabwe on behalf of ZELA in July 2012 confirmed that these discharges exposed the villagers to risks of contracting diseases such as cancer, cholera, typhoid, dental and skeletal fluorosis.

On 23 July 2012, the Zimbabwe Environmental Law Association (ZELA) wrote to Anjin demanding that the company cease discharging the pollutants into the rivers.

However, in a letter dated 26 July 2012, Anjin denied discharging pollutants into the rivers. The company also claimed to have constructed 20 sedimentation ponds used to filter the water so as to prevent pollution.

Legal Argument

Complainants requested a court order which would prohibit the mining companies from releasing waste discharges into the Odzi, Singwizi and Save Rivers.

Alternatively, the plaintiffs contended that the waste discharges constitute a nuisance which hinders them from enjoying the usage of the public rivers as they have traditionally done for many years. Furthermore, the discharges by the defendants were said to be unreasonable and unlawful because the defendants are obliged to treat and contain their waste material before discharging it into public water bodies.

Legal Proceedings

In September 2012, ZELA and five Marange residents filed a lawsuit against Anjin Investments, Marange Resources, and Diamond Mining Corporation.

In response, the defendants challenged the application by bringing a special plea alleging that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter and it ought to be heard by the Environmental Management Agency. They also contended that an interdict should not be granted as there is an alternative remedy under 10(1) (b) (xiii) of the Environmental Management Act (EMA).

Latest Legal News

On 17 June 2015, the special pleas filed by the defendants were dismissed by the High Court of Zimbabwe. The court found the jurisdictional argument without merit. Furthermore, the court highlighted that the defendants failed to argue that the EMA has the power to issue declaratory orders, which is the relief sought by the plaintiffs. Lastly, the court held that the plaintiffs had a “direct and substantial interest in the subject matter”. Accordingly, the special pleas by the defendants were dismissed with costs.

The case will now be heard on its merits.

News Items

Legal Documents

隱私資訊

本網站使用 cookie 和其他網絡存儲技術。您可以在下方設置您的隱私選項。您所作的更改將立即生效。

有關我們使用網絡儲存技術的更多資訊,請參閱我們的 數據使用和 Cookie 政策

Strictly necessary storage

ON
OFF

Necessary storage enables core site functionality. This site cannot function without it, so it can only be disabled by changing settings in your browser.

分析cookie

ON
OFF

您瀏覽本網頁時我們將以Google Analytics收集信息。接受此cookie將有助我們理解您的瀏覽資訊,並協助我們改善呈現資訊的方法。所有分析資訊都以匿名方式收集,我們並不能用相關資訊得到您的個人信息。谷歌在所有主要瀏覽器中都提供退出Google Analytics的添加應用程式。

市場營銷cookies

ON
OFF

我們從第三方網站獲得企業責任資訊,當中包括社交媒體和搜尋引擎。這些cookie協助我們理解相關瀏覽數據。

您在此網站上的隱私選項

本網站使用 cookie 和其他網絡儲存技術來增強您在必要核心功能之外的體驗。