A mining or exploration licence is a piece of paper. What makes it worth anything is whether the right it describes still exists, in the form described, held by the party presenting it. Most licence checks stop at the first question — does this document look genuine — and never reach the second, which is the one that actually matters.
The failure mode is almost always the same. A counterparty produces a scanned certificate, a licence number, sometimes a photograph of an official seal. It looks correct because it was, at some point, issued correctly. What it does not show is whether the licence has since lapsed for non-payment of fees, been suspended pending a dispute, had its boundaries redrawn, or been reissued to a different holder entirely after a transfer that was never disclosed. None of that is visible on the document itself. It is only visible against the cadastral register — the authority's own record of who holds what, where, and under what conditions, as it stands today rather than as it stood on the date of issue.
Cadastral verification also catches a subtler problem: boundary and overlap. It is common, particularly in areas with a long history of informal or artisanal activity, for a formally registered concession to overlap partially with land already claimed, occupied, or under dispute. A licence can be entirely valid and still not confer the exclusive right the seller is implying, because a portion of the ground it covers is contested. This is not something a document review will surface. It requires plotting the coordinates against the current register and, where possible, against neighbouring claims.
There is a third gap that catches experienced buyers as often as first-time ones: licence type. An exploration licence does not authorise extraction. A small-scale mining licence does not authorise the volumes implied by a large commercial supply agreement. A processing licence covers beneficiation, not the right to mine the ore in the first place. Sellers are not always deliberately misrepresenting this — sometimes the confusion is genuine — but the commercial consequence is the same either way: an agreement built on a licence that does not permit the activity it is meant to support.
What this means in practice is that a licence check is not complete until it has answered three questions independently of the document itself: is this licence currently active and in good standing, does its registered boundary match the ground being offered, and does its category actually permit what the counterparty says it permits. Each of those is a registry question, not a document question, and each one has, in our experience, ended a transaction that looked clean on paper.
Engage Samitac
Facing a transaction that needs independent verification?
Every engagement begins with a confidential conversation. Tell us what you are being offered, and we will tell you what evidence should exist before capital moves.