Villagers from the Chingola District of central Zambia may have something to cheer. They have been allowed to pursue their case against UK-based Vedanta Resources in the London courts, on the allegation that their water supply was polluted by the company’s Zambian subsidiary. The 1,826 citizens of Zambia’s Copperbelt Province allege toxic materials were discharged from the Nchanga Mine into watercourses providing their only source of crop irrigation and drinking water.
The judgment follows after repeated appeals from Vedanta and its Zambian subsidiary, citing corporate laws that ordinarily protect parent companies from domestic liability for the actions of their foreign subsidiaries. The court’s most recent ruling found that Vedanta’s level of intervention in the mine might mean it owes a “duty of care” to the communities it affected, and that these communities might not gain “substantial justice” if the matter was tried in the Zambian courts.
It is worth mentioning the implication to the case decided by the British Court. The case squarely lies in the purview of tortious liability, which is a strong arm of law in the developed world, while it is given scant attention in the developing and least developed world. Tortious liability cast damages on the person/institution which causes damages to the people by way of negligence or otherwise. In developed countries class action are very common and if found negligence on the part of the company, Vedanta may have to cough up a large amount of money as compensation to the affected. That is why the parent company of Vedanta was trying to initiate the case in Zambia against its Zambian subsidiary and not against the parent company incorporated in London.
The decision regarding the above case may be a landmark one since it would allow the people who are affected by the negligence of a subsidiary company incorporated locally to sue the parent company, invariably located in a developed country. It is also worthwhile to note what would be the decision of the court in the developed world as to what they would decide about the jurisdiction of the said case.
