Barberton Mines (Pty) Ltd v Mpumalanga Tourism and Parks Agency and Others (43125/13) [2016] ZAGPPHC 254 (18 February 2016)
The court found that, although the facts of the case are straightforward, the statutory and case law relied upon by the parties raise difficult and novel points of law that are open to different interpretations. On this basis, the court concluded that there is a reasonable prospect that another court could reach a...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] ZAGPPHC 254
- Parties
- Applicant: Barberton Mines (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Mpumalanga Tourism and Parks Agency; Respondent: Mountainlands Owners Association; Respondent: The Trustees for the Time Being of Lomshiyo Trust; Respondent: Way Prop Two (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Simply See (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Deputy Director General: Department of Mineral Resources; Respondent: Regional Manager: Emalahleni Regional Office, Department of Mineral Resources; Respondent: Director General: Department of Mineral Resources; Respondent: Minister of Mineral Resources
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- 43125/13
- Procedural Posture
- Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Judgment Delivered on 28 October 2015.
- Outcome
- Leave to appeal granted to the Supreme Court of Appeal against the whole judgment and order, including the costs order, in respect of the first and second respondents only.
- Judges
- S.A.M. Baqwa
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal, Costs Order, Novel Point of Law
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Barberton Mines (Pty) Ltd
Applicant
Mpumalanga Tourism and Parks Agency
Respondent
Mountainlands Owners Association
Respondent
The Trustees for the Time Being of Lomshiyo Trust
Respondent
Way Prop Two (Pty) Ltd
Respondent
Simply See (Pty) Ltd
Respondent
Deputy Director General: Department of Mineral Resources
Respondent
Regional Manager: Emalahleni Regional Office, Department of Mineral Resources
Respondent
Director General: Department of Mineral Resources
Respondent
Minister of Mineral Resources
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Judgment Delivered on 28 October 2015.
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted against the judgment and order of 28 October 2015.
- 2 Whether the grounds raised by the first and second respondents disclose reasonable prospects of success on appeal.
- 3 Whether the issues raised involve difficult and novel points of law warranting consideration by another court.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that, although the facts of the case are straightforward, the statutory and case law relied upon by the parties raise difficult and novel points of law that are open to different interpretations. On this basis, the court concluded that there is a reasonable prospect that another court could reach a different conclusion. Accordingly, leave to appeal was granted to the Supreme Court of Appeal against the whole judgment and order, including the costs order, but only in respect of the first and second respondents. Costs of the application were ordered to be costs in the appeal.
Court Disposition
Leave to appeal granted to the Supreme Court of Appeal against the whole judgment and order, including the costs order, in respect of the first and second respondents only.
Orders
- Leave is granted to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal against the whole judgment and order including the order for costs against the first and second respondents only.
- Costs to be costs in the Appeal.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
51 paragraphs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)
CASE NO: 43125/13
18/2/2016
Not reportable
Not of interest to other judges
Revised
In the matter between:
BARBERTON MINES (PTY) LTD Applicant
and
MPUMALANGA TOURISM AND PARKS AGENCY 1st Respondent
MOUNTAINLANDS OWNERS ASSOCIATION 2nd Respondent
THE TRUSTEES FOR THE TIME BEING OF THE 3rd Respondent
LOMSHIYO TRUST
WAY PROP TWO (PTY) LTD 4th Respondent
SIMPLY SEE (PTY) LTD 5th Respondent
THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR GENERAL: 6th Respondent
DEPARTMENT OF MINERAL RESOURCES
THE REGIONAL MANAGER: EMALAHLENI 7th Respondent
REGIONAL OFFICE, DEPARTMENT OF
MINERAL RESOURCES
THE DIRECTOR GENERAL: DEPARTMENT OF
MINERAL RESOURCES 8th Respondent
THE MINISTER OF MINERAL RESOURCES 9th Respondent
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL JUDGMENT
Bagwa J
[1] This is an application for leave to appeal against my judgment of 28 October 2015 by the first and second respondent.
[2] The grounds for the application are set out in detail in the application for leave and I do not propose to repeat those in this
brief ex tempore judgment.
[3] Making reference to those grounds Mr Wesley has addressed me comprehensively expanding on those grounds. Mr Lazarus in his equally
comprehensive address and with reference to his heads of argument has sought to persuade me not to grant leave to appeal.
[4] It is correct that whilst the facts of the case may be simple and easy to comprehend, those facts, the relevant statutory and case law on which the parties base their respective cases raise difficult and novel points of law which can be subject to different ways of interpretation.
[5] On that basis, I am of the view that another court could possibly come to a conclusion different from the one reached in my judgment.
[6] In the result the following order is made:
6.1. Leave is granted to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal against the whole judgment and order including the order for costs against the first and second respondents only.
6.2. Costs to be costs in the Appeal.
_________________________
S.A.M. BAQWA
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
Date of Hearing: 18 February 2016
Date of Judgment: 18 February 2016
For the Applicant: Adv. P. Lazarus (SC)
Instructed by:
Malan Scholes Incorporated
For the Respondents: Adv. M. A. Wesley (SC)
Instructed by: Richard Spoor Incorporated
(1st to 5th Respondents)
Instructed by:
The State Attorney
(6th to 9th Respondents)