Director: Mineral Development, Gauteng Region and Another v Save the Vaal Environment and Others (133/98) [1999] ZASCA 9; [1999] 2 All SA 381 (A) (12 March 1999)

Director: Mineral Development, Gauteng Region and Another v Save the Vaal Environment and Others (133/98) [1999] ZASCA 9; [1999] 2 All SA 381 (A) (12 March 1999)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the audi alteram partem rule applies to the Director's decision to grant a mining licence under section 9 of the Minerals Act. The court found that section 9 requires consideration of environmental rehabilitation, which directly affects the rights and interests of affected parties. The mere granting of a mining licence sets in motion a chain of events that may lead to environmental harm, and thus interested parties must be afforded an opportunity to be heard at the licence application stage. The Act does not expressly or by necessary implication exclude the audi rule, and public policy supports its application given the potential for significant...

Citation
[1999] ZASCA 9
Parties
Appellant: Director: Mineral Development, Gauteng Region; Appellant: Sasol Mining (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Save the Vaal Environment; Respondent: Ronsand Ranch (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Giovanni Alberto Mario Ravazzotti; Respondent: Susan Sellschop; Respondent: Lynne Dale Green
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 March 1999
Case Number
133/98
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment; Leave to Appeal Granted
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Mahomed, Howie, Marais, Olivier, Madlanga
Legal Topics
Audi Alteram Partem, Mining Authorisation, Environmental Rights, Rehabilitation of Land, Legitimate Expectation
Administrative Law Environmental Law Audi Alteram Partem Mining Authorisation Environmental Rights Rehabilitation of Land Legitimate Expectation

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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Director: Mineral Development, Gauteng Region

Appellant

Sasol Mining (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Save the Vaal Environment

Respondent

Ronsand Ranch (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Giovanni Alberto Mario Ravazzotti

Respondent

Susan Sellschop

Respondent

Lynne Dale Green

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment; Leave to Appeal Granted

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether interested parties opposing a mining licence under section 9 of the Minerals Act are entitled to raise environmental objections and be heard by the Director.
  2. 2 Whether the audi alteram partem rule applies to the Director's decision to grant a mining licence under section 9 of the Minerals Act.
  3. 3 Whether the existence and constitution of Save the Vaal Environment contravenes section 30(1) of the Companies Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the audi alteram partem rule applies to the Director's decision to grant a mining licence under section 9 of the Minerals Act. The court found that section 9 requires consideration of environmental rehabilitation, which directly affects the rights and interests of affected parties. The mere granting of a mining licence sets in motion a chain of events that may lead to environmental harm, and thus interested parties must be afforded an opportunity to be heard at the licence application stage. The Act does not expressly or by necessary implication exclude the audi rule, and public policy supports its application given the potential for significant...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.