Delwerswaaksaamheidskomitee Wolmaransstad v Oersonskraal Diamante BK (609/95) [1997] ZASCA 42 (20 May 1997)
- Citation
- [1997] ZASCA 42
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Supreme Court of Appeal
- Panel
- Van Heerden, E M Grosskopf, Vivier, F H Grosskopf, Plewman
- Case number
- 609/95
More details
- Court
- Supreme Court of Appeal
- Panel
- Van Heerden, E M Grosskopf, Vivier, F H Grosskopf, Plewman
- Case number
- 609/95
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The appellant failed to discharge its onus of proof regarding the alleged disturbance of diamond-bearing gravel by the respondent. The court found it impossible, on the papers, to conclude that the appellant had proved its case. The appellant did not request referral of the dispute for oral evidence in the court below, and there were no sufficient grounds for the appellate court to exercise its discretion to refer the matter back for such purpose. The appellant was not entitled to rely on new grounds of claim raised in its replying affidavit, and as a representative body, could not claim relief based on harm to only some members. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed with costs.
02
Material facts
Parties
Delwerswaaksaamheidskomitee Wolmaransstad
AppellantOersonskraal Diamante BK
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the appellant proved entitlement to a final interdict against the respondent's diamond excavations.
- 02
Whether the appellant could rely on new grounds of claim in its replying affidavit.
- 03
Whether the appellant, acting in a representative capacity, could claim relief based on harm to only some members.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The appellant argued that the respondent's diamond excavations disturbed diamond-bearing gravel, entitling it to a final interdict. It further relied on a passage in its replying affidavit, suggesting that certain members could be prejudiced if forced to remove soil from their claims before mining, while others could immediately access diamond-bearing gravel.
- Respondent
- The respondent vigorously disputed the appellant's allegations regarding disturbance of diamond-bearing gravel and argued that the appellant failed to discharge its onus of proof. The respondent also contended that the appellant was not entitled to rely on new grounds of claim raised for the first time in reply and that any alleged prejudice affected only some members, not the majority.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Redes vir Uitspraak, Van Heerden AR
A final interdict may only be granted if the applicant proves its entitlement on the papers, including the alleged disturbance of diamond-bearing gravel.
- 02
Redes vir Uitspraak, Van Heerden AR
An applicant is not entitled to rely on new causes of action raised for the first time in a replying affidavit.
- 03
Redes vir Uitspraak, Van Heerden AR
A representative applicant cannot claim relief based on conduct that may prejudice only a minority of its members while benefiting the majority.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The appellant failed to discharge its onus of proof regarding the alleged disturbance of diamond-bearing gravel by the respondent. The court found it impossible, on the papers, to conclude that the appellant had proved its case. The appellant did not request referral of the dispute for oral evidence in the court below, and there were no sufficient grounds for the appellate court to exercise its discretion to refer the matter back for such purpose. The appellant was not entitled to rely on new grounds of claim raised in its replying affidavit, and as a representative body, could not claim relief based on harm to only some members. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
Obiter and limits
- The excavations in question were likely completed long ago, and only costs remain in issue.
- Confusion may arise when a miner with a 'hole claim' asserts that some of his diamonds are located on a 'heap claim', but this does not justify relief for the appellant.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed with costs.
- The appeal is dismissed with costs.
Source and reliance status
Supreme Court of Appeal
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Supreme Court of Appeal
Judgment
Download original filesPDF formatRTF format
Download original files
PDF formatRTF format
PDF format
RTF format
Saaknommer: 609/95
In sake die appl van
l van
Die Delwerswaaksaamheidskomitee Wolmaransstad Appellant
teen
Oersonskraal Diamante BK
Respondent
HOF: VAN HEERDEN, E M GROSSKOPF, VIVIER, F H GROSSKOPF en PLEWMAN ARR
Verhoordatum: 8 Mei 1997Redes ingehandig:20 Mei l997
Redes ingehandig:
REDES VIR UITSPRAAK
2
Van Heerden AR:
In hierdie geval het die appellant aanspraak gemaak op 'n finale interdik. Afgesien van ander oorwegings kon die applikant uit hoofde van sy funderende verklaring so 'n bevel verkry het slegs indien bewys is, soos wel beweer is, dat die respondent se uitgrawings diamanthoudende gruis versteur het. Hierdie bewerings was egter heftig deur die respondent bestry en dit was en is onmoontlik om op die stukke te bevind dat die appellant hom van sy bewyslas gekwyt het. Blykens die uitspraak het die appellant nie in die hof benede gevra dat die geskil vir die aanhoor van mondelinge getuienis verwys moes word nie, en selfs indien hierdie hof op appel in so 'n geval 'n aansoek vir dusdanige doel sou kon terugverwys, is daar nie voldoende gronde waarom in casu die veronderstelde diskresie ten gunste van die appellant uitgeoefen moet word nie. Inteendeel. Die uitgrawings is vermoedelik reeds lankal afgehandel en slegs kose is tans ter sprake.
e is tans ter sprake.
3
Die appellant se advokaat het egter getrag om te steun op die volgende
passasie in die repliserende verklaring:
"Dit spreek vanself dat, afhangende van die afmeting van die kleims, 'n besondere delwer uiters benadeel kan word indien hy eers 'n hoop grond bo-op sy "kleim" moet verwyder, alvorens hy kan begin delf, terwyl 'n ander delwer reeds in die diamantdraende gruis is, en onmiddellik kan delf. Die verdere verwarring wat kan ontstaan wanneer 'n delwer met 'n "gat"-kleim, daarop aanspraak maak dat van sy diamante lop 'n "hoop"-kleim, spreek vir sigself."
op 'n "hoop"-kleim, spreek vir sigself."
Die eerste antwoord op hierdie betoog is dat die appellant nie geregtig was om
in sy repliserende verklaring op 'n nuwe "skuldoorsaak" te steun nie. Die
tweede is dat die appellant in 'n verteenwoordigende hoedanigheid ageer en dat
hy hom nouliks kan beroep op optrede wat miskien 'n paar van sy lede mag
benadeel maar die meerderheid mag bevoordeel.
Om hierdie redes is die appl by die verhoor daarvan met koste afgewys.
l by die verhoor daarvan met koste afgewys.
H J O VAN HEERDEN
Stem Saam
APPLREGTER
LREGTER
E M Grosskopf AR Vivier ARF H Grosskopf AR Plewman AR
F H Grosskopf AR Plewman AR
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.