RE: Media misinformation5 Jun 2024 09:38
Re the court case that was ongoing
) Alfakharany asked to cancel the agreement/convention, based on 2 reasons:
A- Corruption in Egypt before the 25th Jan 2011 revolution and the growing requests to void all agreements signed by the previous governments.
The court: We would like to make it clear that the law will always stay away from any political events and will only rule according to law and justice.
B- CEY did not fulfil the conditions of the agreement (specifying exceeding the time took for exploration), so the government should have cancelled the agreement.
The court: As CEY refused the minister's offer of 3 sq km and the dispute lasted for 3 years, the company should not be responsible for the delay. The company's legal position and contractual rights were confirmed when it achieved the commercial discovery within the time set in the agreement.
So the court refuse this request to cancel the agreement/convention.
2) Alfakharany asked to cancel the exploitation contract in relation to specifying 160 sq km as the exploitation area.
The court: Due to the absence of the minister on the agreement between EMRA & CEY to specify 160 sq km as an exploitation area, and this is a requirement in the agreement, so the contract lost the condition to be valid/legal, with the legal consequence being to return the exploitation area to the 3 sq km, unless CEY takes the correct legal procedure to challenge this ruling.
The court then referred to some weakness in the agreement, but made it clear that CEY should not take responsibility for that, but it's the government's fault.
So the lack of supervision and the share of the profit were not reasons for the ruling at all. In the article that was Mr Ali's view (a lawyer).
A transcript of the verdict makes it clear that the court does not intend to terminate the contract between the government, EMRA and Centamin
Sign In
Follow the stocks
