Executive Summary
A dispute concerning an IUP or IUPK should be treated as a
coordinated public-law, regulatory and evidence-management problem. The core sequence
is to identify the challenged decision or governmental action, verify the issuing authority,
determine whether sector-specific or general administrative remedies apply, calculate every
limitation period, and assemble a complete permit chronology supported by original maps,
electronic submission records, payment evidence, environmental approvals, RKAB
documents and inspection files. Where suspension, revocation or competing rights threaten
the value of the mining area, interim protection must be pursued before the regulatory
position becomes practically or legally irreversible. Civil, criminal, environmental and
contractual proceedings may run in parallel, but they should not be allowed to obscure the
principal question: whether the administrative decision was made by the competent
authority, through lawful procedure, on sufficient facts and consistently with the general
principles of good governance.
Background
An IUP or IUPK is not merely a commercial asset. It is an administrative licence linked to
a defined mining area, commodity, stage of activity, term, technical obligations, environmental
commitments, state-revenue obligations and continuing governmental supervision. A dispute
may therefore involve several legally distinct objects: the original licence, a WIUP or WIUPK
determination, a boundary adjustment, a refusal to approve an application, an RKAB decision,
a warning, a suspension, a revocation, a declaration that an earlier licence is invalid, or a
governmental failure to act.
The strategic error most frequently made is to collapse these separate acts into one general
allegation that the licence has been "taken away." Each administrative act has its own issuer,
legal basis, date, procedural history and limitation period. A claim directed at the wrong object
or filed before the wrong forum may fail without the court ever reaching the commercial merits.
The current legal framework is also more exacting. Law No. 4 of 2009 on Mineral and Coal
Mining has been amended most recently by Law No. 2 of 2025. Government Regulation No.
96 of 2021 has been amended by Government Regulation No. 25 of 2024 and Government
Regulation No. 39 of 2025. The implementing regime now includes Minister of Energy and
Mineral Resources Regulation No. 18 of 2025, while RKAB and reporting requirements are
governed by Ministerial Regulation No. 17 of 2025 as amended by Ministerial Regulation No.
6 of 2026. A strategy based on an earlier licensing framework may misidentify both the
governing obligation and the available corrective route.
Key Legal Issues
- Identify the legally operative administrative decision or government action.
- Verify competence, delegation, forum, and the available form of relief.
- Preserve administrative remedies and calculate every limitation period.
- Build a complete permit, technical, payment, and environmental record.
- Coordinate administrative, civil, environmental, and investigative pathways without inconsistent positions.
Analysis
2.1 Define the legally operative act
The case team should obtain the signed decision, its attachments, proof of dispatch or
announcement, the electronic-system record and every preceding warning or evaluation. The
operative act may differ from the document that first alerted the company. A system status, a
ministerial letter, an OSS notification, a decision of the Governor and a formal revocation
decree do not necessarily carry the same legal effect.
The relief should correspond to the object. Cancellation of a revocation, correction of
coordinates, annulment of an overlapping permit, an order to decide an application, restoration
of access to a regulatory system and damages for unlawful governmental conduct are different
remedies. The pleading should not ask the administrative court to decide a private ownership
dispute, nor ask a civil court to invalidate an administrative licence.
2.2 Verify competence and delegation
Authority must be traced through the Mining Law, Government Regulation No. 96 of 2021
as amended, Presidential Regulation No. 55 of 2022 on delegated mining-licensing authority,
and any relevant implementing rule. The analysis should establish whether the act belonged to
the Minister, the Governor or another authorised official, whether delegation remained
effective on the date of decision, and whether the official acted within the delegated subject
matter, territory and stage of mining activity.
A competence defect is not cured by the commercial reasonableness of the outcome.
Conversely, an attack based only on the identity of the signatory will be weak where a valid
delegation, mandate or electronic authorisation exists. The complete institutional chain must
be obtained before alleging lack of authority.
2.3 Select the controlling forum
The validity of a government decision or action generally belongs to the administrativelaw route after the required administrative remedies have been exhausted. Contractual disputes
among shareholders, sellers, contractors or joint-venture participants may belong to the civil
courts or arbitration. Land-right disputes may require a separate land-law analysis.
Environmental enforcement and criminal investigations operate on their own statutory
elements. Effective case architecture allocates each issue to the correct forum while preserving
a single, consistent factual chronology.
3. Preserve Administrative Remedies and Limitation Periods
Where the sector-specific rule does not provide a different route, Law No. 30 of 2014 on
Government Administration provides for an objection and an administrative appeal. An
objection is generally submitted within 21 working days after the decision is announced; an
appeal is generally submitted within 10 working days after the objection decision is received.
Under Supreme Court Regulation No. 6 of 2018, an administrative-court action is generally
filed within 90 days after the decision on the administrative remedy is received or announced.
These periods should be calculated from documentary evidence, not recollection. Record
the date of announcement, electronic delivery, receipt by the company, first actual knowledge
by an affected third party, objection, deemed decision, appeal and final administrative
response. Where more than one date is arguable, the litigation timetable should adopt the
earliest defensible date while expressly preserving the alternative computation.
Administrative remedies do not automatically suspend the challenged act. Immediate
consideration should therefore be given to a formal request for postponement or suspension,
both within the administrative process and, where proceedings are filed, through the interim
mechanisms available before the Administrative Court. The application should demonstrate
urgency, concrete prejudice, the risk of irreversible change to the licence area and the public
interest in maintaining an orderly regulatory status pending review.
4. Build the Merits Record Before Drafting the Claim
1. Authority and legal basis. Identify the statutory provision, delegation instrument, internal
authority and decision-making level relied upon. Test whether the official applied the law
in force on the date of the act.
2. Procedural regularity. Collect notices, inspection minutes, clarification invitations,
warning letters, responses, hearing records and proof that the licence holder was given a
meaningful opportunity to correct or explain the alleged breach.
3. Substantive compliance. Reconcile the licence conditions against PNBP payments,
approved and submitted RKAB documents, production and sales reports, environmental
approval, reclamation guarantees, land access, technical reports and corporate
requirements.
4. General principles of good governance. Assess legal certainty, accuracy, impartiality,
proportionality, non-abuse of authority, openness and proper service. The strongest
argument links a governance principle to a specific evidentiary failure and a concrete legal
consequence.
5. Reliance and proportionality. Document investments, employment, community
obligations, downstream commitments and remediation already undertaken, but use them
to test proportionality rather than as a substitute for regulatory compliance.
Implications
1. Administrative remedy first. Frame the objection as a decision-ready record: relief
requested, legal defects, corrected facts, supporting exhibits and a realistic compliance
plan. Avoid using the objection merely as a preview of later litigation.
2. PTUN claim with targeted interim relief. Challenge the precise administrative object,
plead competence, procedure, substance and good-governance defects, and request
postponement where implementation could cause irreversible loss of the licence area or
operational status.
3. Protect against competing third-party rights. A competing licence holder or affected
third party may enter the dispute or commence a separate challenge. Map all potentially
affected parties early and avoid relief that cannot be implemented without hearing them.
4. Coordinate parallel proceedings. Civil, arbitration, environmental and criminal matters
should use a common document chronology and consistent characterisation of ownership,
control, operations and regulatory responsibility. Contradictory positions can damage
credibility across forums.
5. Use regulatory settlement intelligently. A lawful resolution may involve corrected
coordinates, area reduction, staged compliance, payment reconciliation, amended work
plans or a transparent transition. Settlement cannot validate an act made without legal
authority or privately dispose of obligations owed to the State.
6. Control communications. Public statements should be factual, restrained and consistent
with the formal record. Accusations of corruption, criminalisation or political intervention
should not be made without independently verified evidence and a clear procedural
purpose.
Practical Considerations / Next Steps
• Freeze deletion and preserve all hard-copy and electronic records, including OSS, MODI, RKAB
and correspondence data.
• Create a one-page chronology identifying every permit, amendment, warning, submission,
inspection, payment, decision and date of receipt.
• Calculate the earliest possible objection, appeal and court deadlines and assign a responsible person
for each filing.
• Obtain the official decision file and verify the issuing authority, legal basis, attachments and proof
of service.
• Commission a focused technical review: coordinates for overlap, accounting for PNBP, engineering
for operational allegations, and environmental evidence for reclamation or approval issues.
• Prepare a protective-relief memorandum addressing urgency, irreversibility, balance of harm and
public interest.
• Separate curable compliance issues from disputed allegations and implement corrective measures
that do not prejudice the legal position.
• Establish a single litigation data room, exhibit index, privilege protocol and authorised
communication channel.
Conclusion
The strongest IUP or IUPK dispute strategy is built before the first pleading. It identifies
the exact administrative object, preserves the remedy sequence, secures interim protection,
tests the decision against current mining regulations and presents a complete technical and
documentary record. Commercial importance may explain urgency, but legality is established
through competence, procedure, evidence and proportionate regulatory reasoning.
Mining-right holders should therefore respond to an adverse decision on two tracks at once:
challenge any unlawful administrative act and cure any objectively remediable compliance
issue. That combination protects credibility, preserves operational value and gives the regulator
or court a legally workable route to correct the dispute.
