The Jawalla village council earlier this month lost a case to prevent two miners from mining on the Mazaruni River that borders the Region Seven community.
“It is clear that the Mazaruni River is not part and parcel of the village lands of Jawalla. It also appears that the Mazaruni River does not pass through the village lands of Jawalla or lands contiguous with the village lands of Jawalla.
The Mazaruni River appears to pass along rather than through the said village area or lands contiguous therewith,” acting Chief Justice Ian Chang and Justice Rishi Persaud wrote in the Full Court judgement, dated October 2nd, 2015.
The Jawalla Village Council had filed an action against James Krawowsky, Timna Mining Company Guyana Inc and the Guyana Geology and Mines Commission (GGMC) seeking to restrain the first and second named defendants from mining or attempting to mine on any part of Jawalla’s property.
They also sought to prevent the GGMC from granting permission to Krawowsky and Timna Mining Company to do mining.
In their decision, Justices Chang and Persaud wrote that it does not appear that the GGMC was under a statutory obligation under section 53 of the Amerindian Act 2006 to notify the village and to satisfy itself that the impact of mining on the village would not be harmful.
“Even if the GGMC was in breach of its statutory obligation under section 53 of the Amerindian Act 2006, an interim injunction cannot be the proper remedy against GGMC since the GGMC has already granted permission to the first and second named defendants-respondents to conduct mining activities in the Mazaruni River,” they wrote.
According to the justices, it should be noted that the ex parte application was for an injunction to restrain the first and second named defendants/ respondents from mining or attempting to mine on any part of the plaintiffs property and to restrain the GGMC from issuing any permission to the first two defendants/ respondents to mine or to operate within the boundaries of the applicant’s property.
“Clearly, the Mazaruni River is not part of the plaintiff—applicant’s property and the Jawalla Village Council does not own, possess or control that river.
The substantive action is based on trespass and therefore the plaintiff—applicant has to show possession i.e. control of the river. Clearly the plaintiff-applicant neither owns nor controls the Mazaruni River,” the justices found.
“The court therefore does not see it fit to grant the interim injunctions sought by the applicant-plaintiff. The application is therefore refused in it’s entirely,” they wrote.
Krawowsky and the Timna Mining Company were discharged from their undertaking not to proceed with mining operations and costs were awarded to the defendants-respondents in the cause in the sum of $20,000 each.
Attorney Nigel Hughes represented the village, while Roysdale Forde appeared for Krakowsky and Timna Mining Company, and Patrice Henry appeared for the GGMC.
