Dengetenge Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Southern Sphere Mining and Development Company Ltd and Others (619/12) [2013] ZASCA 5; [2013] 2 All SA 251 (SCA) (11 March 2013)

Dengetenge Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Southern Sphere Mining and Development Company Ltd and Others (619/12) [2013] ZASCA 5; [2013] 2 All SA 251 (SCA) (11 March 2013)

The Supreme Court of Appeal refused condonation for the appellant's failure to comply with the rules of court and prosecute the appeal timeously. The appellant's explanation for the delay was found to be inadequate and lacking candour, with significant gaps in the chronology and no satisfactory account for the prolonged silence after learning the appeal had lapsed. The respondents demonstrated severe prejudice, having incurred substantial costs and made commitments based on the finality of the judgment. The appellant's counsel had conceded before the high court that the grant of prospecting rights to Dengetenge was unlawful, and the appeal had no prospects of success. The cumulative...

Citation
[2013] ZASCA 5
Parties
Appellant: Dengetenge Holdings (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Southern Sphere Mining and Development Company Limited; Respondent: Rhodium Reefs Limited; Respondent: Minister of Minerals and Energy; Respondent: Deputy Director-General: Mineral Regulation, Department of Minerals and Energy; Respondent: Regional Manager: Mpumalanga Region, Department of Minerals and Energy; Respondent: Regional Manager: Limpopo Region, Department of Minerals and Energy; Respondent: Abrina 1998 (Pty) Ltd
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 March 2013
Case Number
619/12
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Condonation and Reinstatement of Lapsed Appeal
Outcome
Condonation refused; appeal not revived.
Judges
Nugent, Ponnan, Shongwe, Theron, Erasmus
Legal Topics
Condonation, Prospecting Rights, Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act, Review of Administrative Action, Interdict, Finality of Judgment
Civil Procedure Land and Property Condonation Prospecting Rights Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act Review of Administrative Action Interdict Finality of Judgment

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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dengetenge Holdings (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Southern Sphere Mining and Development Company Limited

Respondent

Rhodium Reefs Limited

Respondent

Minister of Minerals and Energy

Respondent

Deputy Director-General: Mineral Regulation, Department of Minerals and Energy

Respondent

Regional Manager: Mpumalanga Region, Department of Minerals and Energy

Respondent

Regional Manager: Limpopo Region, Department of Minerals and Energy

Respondent

Abrina 1998 (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Condonation and Reinstatement of Lapsed Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's failure to comply with the rules of court and prosecute the appeal timeously should be condoned.
  2. 2 Whether the appeal should be revived despite the delay and prejudice to the respondents.
  3. 3 Whether the grant of prospecting rights to Dengetenge Holdings (Pty) Ltd was unlawful in the face of an interdict.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal refused condonation for the appellant's failure to comply with the rules of court and prosecute the appeal timeously. The appellant's explanation for the delay was found to be inadequate and lacking candour, with significant gaps in the chronology and no satisfactory account for the prolonged silence after learning the appeal had lapsed. The respondents demonstrated severe prejudice, having incurred substantial costs and made commitments based on the finality of the judgment. The appellant's counsel had conceded before the high court that the grant of prospecting rights to Dengetenge was unlawful, and the appeal had no prospects of success. The cumulative...

Court Disposition

Condonation refused; appeal not revived.

Orders

  • The application for condonation is dismissed with costs.
  • The applicant for condonation is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the respondents in opposing the lapsed appeal.