Ahead of next week’s hearing at the Supreme Court of Appeal in South Africa, we explore the key legal arguments that could determine whether the Kabwe class action can proceed against Anglo American South Africa – a case arising from one of the world’s most severe and ongoing lead pollution disasters. Here’s what’s at stake for the 140,000 women and children seeking justice.
Who are the claimants in this case?
The class action seeks compensation for children affected by lead poisoning, as well as women under 50 who have been poisoned and who have, or may in the future, become pregnant. The case also seeks funding for the clean-up of contaminated homes and the establishment of a long-term medical screening programme for blood lead levels. The application is brought by 12 representative claimants on behalf of a class of an estimated 140,000 women and children:
- Children (under 18) who live in Kabwe district who have suffered injury from lead exposure; and
- Women who have lived in Kabwe district and have suffered injury from lead exposure that significantly increases adverse health risks during pregnancy to themselves and their unborn children.
Who are the lawyers representing the affected communities?
South African attorneys, Mbuyisa Moleele Attorneys, are representing the affected women and children, with the assistance of UK-based human rights law firm Leigh Day.
Why is Anglo American a defendant in the case?
The former Kabwe Mine (Broken Hill Mine) was one of Africa’s most significant sites for lead and zinc mining. It was part of the Anglo American Group from 1925 to 1974. Anglo American South Africa Limited (AASA) was the parent company and head office of the Anglo American Group (Anglo Group) until 1998. The claimants allege that AASA is liable because it exercised effective control playing a key role in controlling, managing, supervising and advising on technical, medical and safety aspects of the mine’s operations, deficiencies in which resulted in severe lead contamination of the local environment.
What is the timeline of the case so far?
- October 2020: Case filed by Kabwe claimants against AASA
- January 2023: Certification hearing held at Johannesburg High Court to determine whether the case can proceed as a class action.
- December 2023: Case dismissed by Johannesburg High Court on the central ground that the claimants’ case was factually and legally untenable.
- January 2024: Claimants file permission to appeal the dismiss
- April 2024: Claimants win permission to appeal
- November 2025: Supreme Court of Appeal in South Africa to hear arguments challenging the case dismissal.
Why now? Why South Africa?
The lawsuit was filed in South Africa where AASA is based.
Although knowledge of the lead contamination in Kabwe was known decades ago, advances in South Africa’s class action litigation and the legal liability of multinational parent companies have opened new legal avenues for affected communities to seek justice. Crucially, South Africa allows opt-out class actions – unlike Zambia – meaning all eligible women and children are automatically included unless they choose not to participate, ensuring far broader access to justice.
(continued below)
What is the basis for the argument that Anglo American was aware of lead poisoning risks?
- In 1969 – 1970, Dr Lawrence, a doctor at the mine, tested 500 local children; nearly all had blood lead levels (BLLs) exceeding 40 µg/dL, and many had BLLs exceeding 100 µg/dL, putting children at risk of death. The findings led to a report by Professor Ronald Lane at Manchester University recommending relocation of the township and replacement of the topsoil. The proposal was rejected by the Zambian Broken Hill Development Corporation’s (‘ZBHDC’) General Manager due to concerns that it “would be far too expensive”.
- In 1972, another mine doctor, Dr Nicklin, raised alarm in the British Medical Journal over the deaths of five children near the smelter.
- In 1975, Dr A.R.L. Clark’s study surveyed the BLLs of children in Kabwe between 1971 and 1974. He found that the soil and air in Kabwe was already heavily contaminated before 1975, and that the BLLs of residents reflected this.
What does Anglo American say about the lead pollution left behind in Kabwe?
Anglo American denies responsibility for the lead poisoning, arguing that it neither owned nor operated the mine and that the responsibility lies with the Zambian state-owned company, Zambia Consolidated Copper Mines (ZCCM), that took over the mine from 1974-1994, and with its predecessors who operated the mine from 1916–1925. The company maintains that it complied with the standards of the time and that the long-term risks to future generations were not reasonably foreseeable. While expressing sympathy for the situation in Kabwe, Anglo American describes the claim as “entirely misconceived” and continues to oppose the legal action.
What is the response from claimants?
The claimants dispute Anglo American’s denial of responsibility, noting that the company’s tenure from 1925 to 1974 coincided with the period of highest lead production at the Kabwe mine. They point to medical evidence from Doctors Lawrence, Nicklin, and Clark documenting severe lead poisoning in local residents during Anglo’s period of involvement. Expert reports further conclude that major deficiencies in lead emission controls and lead pollution occurred before 1974, while the mine was still under Anglo’s management, before the transfer of the mine to ZCCM.
What do the defendants and claimants argue about ownership of the Kabwe Mine?
Anglo American says that it was not the owner/operator of the Kabwe mine, only a minor investor.
The claimants argue ownership and shareholding are legally irrelevant, because the legal duty depends on the actual involvement in the subsidiary’s key functions related to the harm. Their allegations focus on the negligent management, supervision and advice from AASA, citing an important legal precedent set by the UK Supreme Court on the Lungowe v Vedanta case. This landmark case established that a parent company can owe a duty of care for harm caused by its subsidiary’s operations if it exercised effective control or assumed responsibility over relevant aspects of the subsidiary’s operations.
What was the basis for the initial dismissal of the case in December 2023?
In a 126-page judgment delivered on 15 December, 2023, Justice Leonie Windell of the Johannesburg high court said: “The applicants seek permission to advance an untenable claim that would set a grave precedent.
“The precedent is that a business could be held liable half a century after its activities have ceased, to generations not yet born, as a result of being tested against future knowledge and standards unknown at the time.”
The court also concluded that further disclosure from Anglo would not strengthen the case. In addition, the court found that no prima facie case had been established, that the proposed class was overly broad and unmanageable, and that proceeding with the claim would not be in the interests of justice.
What do claimants say about the dismissal?
The claimants argue that they filed ample evidence to demonstrate that they had an arguable case. They say that the court assessed evidence as if at trial – without the benefit of discovery, pre-trial processes, or oral testimony. They also maintain that, despite extensive affidavits from both sides, expert input was dismissed prematurely. Furthermore, they argue that the court accepted Anglo’s assertion that it had no knowledge of lead poisoning until 1975, despite expert warnings and recommendations cited in the record. The claimants further submit that a class action in South Africa is the only effective means of access to justice for the affected communities.
Will there be interventions at the November appeal hearing?
Yes. The Supreme Court of Appeal will hear three interventions at the hearing on 3–4 November 2025. The court has approved the participation of three sets of amici curiae (“friends of the court”): a group of UN Special Rapporteurs, Amnesty International together with the Southern Africa Litigation Centre, and the Centre for Child Law.
Their interventions underscore the broader public interest and constitutional significance of the case, highlighting its implications for access to justice, corporate accountability, and the protection of vulnerable communities affected by industrial pollution. The expert contributions reinforce the profound and historic importance of this case – not just for individual parties – but for advancing human rights and environmental justice across the region.
More info on the class action can be found here: www.childrenofkabwe.com
See Anglo American’s position on the claim here: www.angloamerican.com/media/our-position-on-kabwe
Photos: Lawrence Thompson