Candero Mining and Consulting (Pty) Ltd v Stmith and Others (7178/16) [2016] ZAGPPHC 376 (26 February 2016)

Candero Mining and Consulting (Pty) Ltd v Stmith and Others (7178/16) [2016] ZAGPPHC 376 (26 February 2016)

The court found that the applicant had established, at least prima facie, that the main dump consists of movable material and that it holds a valid section 161(1) permit under the Mining Rights Act. The applicant demonstrated a reasonable apprehension of irreparable harm due to the respondents' removal and sale of material from the dump, and the respondents failed to rebut the presumption of harm in a vindicatory claim. The balance of convenience favoured the applicant, as the respondents had no rights to the dump and their activities were unlawful. The applicant had no alternative satisfactory remedy. Accordingly, the requirements for an interim interdict were satisfied, and the court...

Citation
[2016] ZAGPPHC 376
Parties
Applicant: Candero Mining and Consulting (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Darren James Stmith; Respondent: Aurico Gold Reclamation (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Raymond Roselt; Respondent: Mingold (Pty) Ltd
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 February 2016
Case Number
7178/16
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Interim Interdict Application Pending Trial Judgment
Outcome
Interim interdict granted in favour of the applicant pending judgment in the main trial.
Judges
J W Louw
Legal Topics
Interim Interdict, Ownership of Mine Dumps, Movable Vs Immovable Property, Mining Rights, Vindicatory Claim
Land and Property Civil Procedure Interim Interdict Ownership of Mine Dumps Movable Vs Immovable Property Mining Rights Vindicatory Claim

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Candero Mining and Consulting (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Darren James Stmith

Respondent

Aurico Gold Reclamation (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Raymond Roselt

Respondent

Mingold (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Interim Interdict Application Pending Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has established a prima facie right to ownership or possession of the main mine dump pending trial judgment.
  2. 2 Whether the main dump is movable property capable of separate ownership from the land.
  3. 3 Whether the requirements for an interim interdict have been satisfied, including irreparable harm and absence of alternative remedy.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had established, at least prima facie, that the main dump consists of movable material and that it holds a valid section 161(1) permit under the Mining Rights Act. The applicant demonstrated a reasonable apprehension of irreparable harm due to the respondents' removal and sale of material from the dump, and the respondents failed to rebut the presumption of harm in a vindicatory claim. The balance of convenience favoured the applicant, as the respondents had no rights to the dump and their activities were unlawful. The applicant had no alternative satisfactory remedy. Accordingly, the requirements for an interim interdict were satisfied, and the court...

Court Disposition

Interim interdict granted in favour of the applicant pending judgment in the main trial.

Orders

  • The respondents are interdicted from removing material from the main dump pending judgment in the trial.
  • The respondents are interdicted from selling or permitting the removal of material from the main dump to third parties pending judgment.