“I note that the decision of July 28, 2026 had become effective by the time the applicant moved the court on July 30, 2026. I also note that implementation of the decision had begun in earnest, and that the parties had reached a consensus, from the meeting of July 29, 2026, on the suspension remaining in force, even if the applicant takes steps to bring itself into compliance,” said the judge in the ruling dated August 7, 2026.

The suspension followed a dispute over alleged royalty obligations and compliance requirements covering licensing, export reporting, community agreements, local employment and environmental rules.

Tata Chemicals challenged the government’s decision through judicial review proceedings, arguing that the suspension was issued without proper notice or adequate time to respond.

It disputed owing royalties and told the court outstanding royalties had been settled.

The government opposed the request for a temporary order. An affidavit sworn by Thomas Mutwiwa stated that several notices had been issued to Tata Chemicals, with the most recent being dated May 14, 2026, claiming arrears of accrued royalty payments.

The government also told the court that Tata Chemicals did not hold a current mining licence because its application was still being processed.

The Kenya Gazette published in February 2026 a notice confirming receipt of Tata Chemicals’ application for a mining licence covering 63.584 square kilometres in Kajiado County for soda ash.

A separate Gazette notice in October 2025 recorded another application covering 63.4555 square kilometres in Kajiado County, also for soda ash.

The government said the parties met on July 29, a day after the suspension letter. It said they agreed operations would remain suspended while Tata Chemicals took steps towards compliance.

Tata Chemicals said the meeting did not resolve the legality of the suspension. It said discussions concerned royalty calculations and that the minutes should have been shared with it.

In its ruling, the court said it was not required at this stage to decide the merits of the wider dispute.

“At this stage, the court is not required to engage with arguments on the merits of the substantive suit, but to balance the interests and rights of both sides,” it said.

Tata had argued that continuing the suspension would cause huge losses. The court said Tata had not shown the nature or extent of those losses.

“I note too that the commodity, at the centre of it all, from the mining operations, has not been shown to be perishable,” the court stated, declining to issue the interim prohibition order.

The case is expected to be called again in court on October 6, 2026.

The dispute comes as the company is embroiled in a separate case at the Supreme Court with the Kajiado County Government over land rates and royalties. The county had demanded Sh17.45 billion for alleged arrears between 2013 and 2018.