Compregen (Pty) Ltd v Lezmin 2021 (Pty) Ltd and Others (866/2023) [2024] ZAWCHC 284 (27 September 2024)

Compregen (Pty) Ltd v Lezmin 2021 (Pty) Ltd and Others (866/2023) [2024] ZAWCHC 284 (27 September 2024)

The court found that the applicant's case was exclusively premised on hearsay evidence, which was inadmissible as the applicant failed to make out a case for its admission in the founding affidavit or by way of a distinct application. The applicant did not formally oppose the application to strike out nor did it address the constituent factors required for the court to exercise its discretion in favour of admitting hearsay evidence. Furthermore, the applicant introduced impermissible new matter in reply, which was not justified by exceptional circumstances and was prejudicial to the respondent. On the issue of locus standi, the applicant failed to demonstrate actual or apprehended harm...

Citation
[2024] ZAWCHC 284
Parties
Applicant: Compregen (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Lezmin 2021 (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: George Local Municipality; Respondent: The Minister of Minerals and Resources; Respondent: The Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and Environment; Respondent: The Minister of Water and Sanitation; Respondent: The Minister of Local Government, Environmental Affairs and Development Planning; Respondent: The MEC, Department of Local Government, Environmental Affairs and Development Planning, Western Cape
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 September 2024
Case Number
866/2023
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Opposed Application for Declaratory and Interdictory Relief
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs, including costs of Senior Counsel on scale C.
Judges
Thulare
Legal Topics
Land Use Zoning, Mining Rights, Water Use Authorisation, Hearsay Evidence, Locus Standi, Interdictory Relief
Land and Property Environmental Law Civil Procedure Land Use Zoning Mining Rights Water Use Authorisation Hearsay Evidence Locus Standi +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 27 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Compregen (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Lezmin 2021 (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

George Local Municipality

Respondent

The Minister of Minerals and Resources

Respondent

The Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and Environment

Respondent

The Minister of Water and Sanitation

Respondent

The Minister of Local Government, Environmental Affairs and Development Planning

Respondent

The MEC, Department of Local Government, Environmental Affairs and Development Planning, Western Cape

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Opposed Application for Declaratory and Interdictory Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Lezmin's mining activities on Portions 8 and 48 of Farm Kraaibosch No. 195 are unlawful due to lack of proper zoning and water use authorisation.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has locus standi to seek relief for alleged contraventions of the National Water Act and related legislation.
  3. 3 Whether hearsay evidence and impermissible new matter in reply should be admitted in support of the applicant's case.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's case was exclusively premised on hearsay evidence, which was inadmissible as the applicant failed to make out a case for its admission in the founding affidavit or by way of a distinct application. The applicant did not formally oppose the application to strike out nor did it address the constituent factors required for the court to exercise its discretion in favour of admitting hearsay evidence. Furthermore, the applicant introduced impermissible new matter in reply, which was not justified by exceptional circumstances and was prejudicial to the respondent. On the issue of locus standi, the applicant failed to demonstrate actual or apprehended harm...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs, including costs of Senior Counsel on scale C.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs, such costs to include costs of Senior Counsel on the scale C.