Bosaletse N.O. and Others v Minister of Mineral Resources and Others (1891/2013) [2014] ZAFSHC 50 (15 April 2014)

Bosaletse N.O. and Others v Minister of Mineral Resources and Others (1891/2013) [2014] ZAFSHC 50 (15 April 2014)

The court held that the order under attack was expressly confined to interim relief under Part A of the notice of motion and was not final in form or effect. The applicants failed to make out a case that the dismissal of their application for interim relief was definitive of the parties' rights. As such, the order is not appealable to the Supreme Court of Appeal. The application for leave to appeal was dismissed on this basis, and the question of reasonable prospects of success did not arise.

Citation
[2014] ZAFSHC 50
Parties
Applicant: Realeboga Bosaletse N.O.; Applicant: Lucy Ammon N.O.; Applicant: Pumzile F. Ngxito N.O.; Applicant: Masehlepho E. Mqhajane N.O.; Applicant: Tsietsie Joseph Tau N.O.; Applicant: Ditaba L. Sebonyane N.O.; Applicant: Aadil Mather N.O.; Applicant: Patrick A. Mabilo N.O.; Applicant: Esias Jeremia Gerber N.O.; Applicant: Yusuf Kerbelker N.O.; Applicant: Floyd Teu N.O.; Applicant: Wheatfields Investments No. 168 (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Minister of Mineral Resources; Respondent: Director-General, Department of Mineral Resources; Respondent: Acting Regional Manager Mineral Resources, Free State Region; Respondent: De Beers Consolidated Mines Ltd; Respondent: Ponahalo Holdings (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Reinet Fund SCA FIS; Respondent: Jagersfontein Developments (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Marius de Villiers N.O.; Respondent: Henk Johan van Zuydam N.O.; Respondent: Sipho Puwani N.O.; Respondent: Gonthusang Eugine Goliath N.O.; Respondent: Ezekiel Zakhele Dunjane N.O.; Respondent: Kopanong Local Municipality
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 April 2014
Case Number
1891/2013
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal is dismissed with costs.
Judges
Mocumie, Molemela, Jordaan
Legal Topics
Appealability of Orders, Finality of Judgments, Interim Relief, Leave to Appeal
Civil Procedure Appealability of Orders Finality of Judgments Interim Relief Leave to Appeal

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Realeboga Bosaletse N.O.

Applicant

Lucy Ammon N.O.

Applicant

Pumzile F. Ngxito N.O.

Applicant

Masehlepho E. Mqhajane N.O.

Applicant

Tsietsie Joseph Tau N.O.

Applicant

Ditaba L. Sebonyane N.O.

Applicant

Aadil Mather N.O.

Applicant

Patrick A. Mabilo N.O.

Applicant

Esias Jeremia Gerber N.O.

Applicant

Yusuf Kerbelker N.O.

Applicant

Floyd Teu N.O.

Applicant

Wheatfields Investments No. 168 (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Minister of Mineral Resources

Respondent

Director-General, Department of Mineral Resources

Respondent

Acting Regional Manager Mineral Resources, Free State Region

Respondent

De Beers Consolidated Mines Ltd

Respondent

Ponahalo Holdings (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Reinet Fund SCA FIS

Respondent

Jagersfontein Developments (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Marius de Villiers N.O.

Respondent

Henk Johan van Zuydam N.O.

Respondent

Sipho Puwani N.O.

Respondent

Gonthusang Eugine Goliath N.O.

Respondent

Ezekiel Zakhele Dunjane N.O.

Respondent

Kopanong Local Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the order granted by the court is appealable to the Supreme Court of Appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the relief sought and granted was final in effect or merely interim.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants made out a case that the dismissal of the interim relief was definitive of the parties' rights.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the order under attack was expressly confined to interim relief under Part A of the notice of motion and was not final in form or effect. The applicants failed to make out a case that the dismissal of their application for interim relief was definitive of the parties' rights. As such, the order is not appealable to the Supreme Court of Appeal. The application for leave to appeal was dismissed on this basis, and the question of reasonable prospects of success did not arise.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal is dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal is dismissed with costs.