Apex Mines Ltd. v Administrator, Transvaal (37/88) [1988] ZASCA 37 (30 March 1988)

Apex Mines Ltd. v Administrator, Transvaal (37/88) [1988] ZASCA 37 (30 March 1988)

The court held that Apex Mines Limited, as the holder of mineral rights, does not qualify as an 'owner' under the Roads Ordinance and therefore lacks locus standi to claim compensation under sections 92 and 94. The definition of 'owner' is exhaustive and refers to the registered proprietor, lessee, or occupier of the land in the ordinary sense, none of which applies to Apex in respect of the relevant portions. The court further found that 'land' in the context of the Ordinance refers only to the surface area taken up by the road and does not include minerals beneath the surface. Compensation is thus limited to the surface area encroached upon by the road, and no compensation is payable...

Citation
[1988] ZASCA 37
Parties
Appellant: Apex Mines Limited; Respondent: Administrator, Transvaal
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 March 1988
Case Number
37/88
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Transvaal Provincial Division on Questions of Law Stated Under Rule 33
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Nicholas, Corbett, Nestadt, Vivier, Boshoff
Legal Topics
Compensation for Expropriation, Road Reserves, Mineral Rights, Locus Standi
Land and Property Civil Procedure Compensation for Expropriation Road Reserves Mineral Rights Locus Standi

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Apex Mines Limited

Appellant

Administrator, Transvaal

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Transvaal Provincial Division on Questions of Law Stated Under Rule 33

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is Apex Mines Limited, as holder of mineral rights, entitled to claim compensation under sections 92 and 94 of the Roads Ordinance 22 of 1957?
  2. 2 Does the term 'land' in the Ordinance include underlying coal deposits for compensation purposes?
  3. 3 Is compensation payable for adverse effects on mineral rights due to road proclamations?

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that Apex Mines Limited, as the holder of mineral rights, does not qualify as an 'owner' under the Roads Ordinance and therefore lacks locus standi to claim compensation under sections 92 and 94. The definition of 'owner' is exhaustive and refers to the registered proprietor, lessee, or occupier of the land in the ordinary sense, none of which applies to Apex in respect of the relevant portions. The court further found that 'land' in the context of the Ordinance refers only to the surface area taken up by the road and does not include minerals beneath the surface. Compensation is thus limited to the surface area encroached upon by the road, and no compensation is payable...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.