MINING COMPANY TAKES ZAMBIA POLLUTION CASE TO SUPREME COURT IN BID TO AVOID TRIAL
Sino Metals appeals High Court ruling that cleared the way for 176 community members to have their constitutional rights case heard. Supreme Court hearing set for 3 June 2026
Lusaka/Johannesburg – Sino Metals Leach Zambia Limited has escalated its efforts to prevent a landmark pollution case from reaching trial, filing an appeal at the Supreme Court of Zambia (Appeal No. 8/2026). The appeal, set to be heard on 3 June 2026 in Kabwe, challenges a November 2025 High Court ruling that dismissed the company’s attempt to throw out a constitutional petition brought by 176 residents of Kalusale and Chambishi, with the support of environmental and community activists, Mr Chilekwa Mumba and Mr David Ngwenyama, and the Southern Africa Litigation Centre (SALC).
The petition, filed in September 2025 following one of Zambia’s worst industrial environmental disasters, alleges that the catastrophic collapse of Sino Metals’ tailings dams violated the petitioners’ constitutional rights to life, dignity, property, privacy, expression, association, movement, and protection from inhuman treatment and a clean and healthy environment. Rather than engaging with those claims on the merits, Sino Metals has pursued a series of procedural challenges to halt the case before evidence is heard.
On 17 November 2025, the High Court dismissed all of Sino Metals’ grounds for striking out the petition. The company has now appealed that decision to the Supreme Court, raising nine grounds. The respondents, represented by Messrs. Malambo & Co. and Lusitu Chambers, with support from SALC, argue that all grounds are without merit and that the appeal should be dismissed with costs.
“This case is not only about justice for 176 families in Chambishi. It is about whether Southern Africa’s communities have constitutional rights that can be enforced against the companies operating on their land. The Supreme Court’s decision will reverberate across the region, and we are confident the law is firmly on the side of the communities. Every procedural challenge Sino Metals files is another month of delay for families who have already waited too long. The law is clear, the facts are devastating, and it is time for this case to be heard,” says Anneke Meerkotter, Executive Director, Southern Africa Litigation Centre.
What Sino Metals is arguing, and why the respondents say it fails
Sino Metals’ grounds of appeal raise a range of procedural and jurisdictional objections. Key issues include:
Whether the Bill of Rights applies to private companies
Sino Metals argues that constitutional rights under Zambia’s Bill of Rights apply only to the State, not to private corporations. The respondents reject this interpretation, pointing to Article 1(3) of the Constitution, which states that it “shall bind all persons in Zambia, State organs and State institutions”, and Article 266, which defines “person” to include companies. The respondents argue that Zambia’s Constitution contains no qualifying language limiting constitutional obligations to State actors, a deliberate and legally significant omission.
Whether the petition was properly brought
Sino Metals argues the case was filed using the wrong legal procedure. The respondents point to Article 28 of the Constitution and Rule 2 of the Protection of Fundamental Rights Rules, 1969, which expressly require that claims alleging violations of the Bill of Rights be brought by petition to the High Court. The respondents argue this is precisely what was done, and cite binding Supreme Court precedent confirming the same.
Whether the settlement agreements bar the claims
Twenty-seven of the petitioners signed Deeds of Settlement and Release with Sino Metals in July 2025, which contained arbitration clauses. Sino Metals argues these agreements should be enforced and bar those petitioners from the constitutional case. The respondents argue that private arbitration agreements cannot oust constitutional rights cases, that the deeds were entered into under duress and without independent legal advice, and that the agreements were conditional on a comprehensive environmental assessment that had not yet been completed. The respondents submit that the deeds are illegal and unenforceable.
Whether there is a multiplicity of proceedings
Sino Metals argues the petition duplicates a separate civil claim filed by other community members. The respondents note that the constitutional petition was filed on 12 September 2025, before the other action was commenced on 23 September 2025. Article 28 of the Constitution expressly preserves the right to pursue constitutional remedies “without prejudice to any other action with respect to the same matter which is lawfully available”. The respondents further note that rather than seeking consolidation of the two cases, Sino Metals has applied to have both dismissed. The respondents characterise this approach as an effort to prevent victims from accessing any remedy.
The human cost of delay
More than fifteen months have passed since the tailings dam collapse of 18 February 2025. In that time, government agencies confirmed pH levels as low as 1.91 in affected waterways, independent scientific assessments identified arsenic, uranium, and other toxic substances posing risks of chronic illness and cancer, and the Ministry of Fisheries reported an ecological crisis affecting around 300,000 households dependent on the Kafue River.
A Member of Parliament told Zambia’s Parliament in October 2025 that community members in Kalusale were being prevented from leaving by a police presence and that Sino Metals was controlling their access and movement. Pollution, she said, was still ongoing.
Many residents have received an inadequate clean water supply, no adequate healthcare, no fair compensation and are consuming contaminated crops. The constitutional petition remains the primary avenue through which affected families are seeking accountability and redress.
Significance of the case
The Supreme Court hearing on 3 June 2026 will determine whether the High Court was correct to allow the constitutional case to proceed to trial. The respondents argue the appeal is an attempt to use procedural law as a shield against accountability.
The case is significant beyond Zambia. It raises foundational questions about whether private mining companies, many of them foreign-owned, can be held directly accountable under African constitutional human rights frameworks, and whether communities affected by industrial pollution can access constitutional remedies.
Background: Key timeline
- 18 February 2025 – Multiple tailings dams (TD15F, TD15E, TD15D, RD15C, TD15B, TD15A) operated by Sino Metals collapsed, releasing up to 900,000 million litres of toxic effluent into the Chambishi Stream, Mwambashi River and Kafue River system
- 19–21 February 2025 – ZEMA confirms extensive contamination; Zambian Parliament acknowledges the disaster
- March–April 2025 – Ministries and independent researchers confirm unsafe heavy metal levels; US and Finnish embassies issue evacuation advisories
- July 2025 – A limited compensation scheme is launched, excluding most households and requiring petitioners to sign broad liability waivers
- 12 September 2025 – 176 residents file constitutional petition (Cause No. 2025/HP/1285) in the High Court of Zambia
- 31 October 2025 – Sino Metals files application to dismiss the petition
- 17 November 2025 – High Court dismisses all grounds in Sino Metals’ application; case to proceed
- 6 April 2026 – Sino Metals files an appeal against the High Court decision to refuse to dismiss the petition
- 3 June 2026 – Supreme Court to hear Sino Metals’ appeal (Appeal No. 8/2026)
Background information on the case and useful resources on tailings dams are available here.