Harmony Golf Mining (Pty) Ltd and Others v Lejweleputswa Community Engagement Structure and Others (502/2023) [2023] ZAFSHC 193 (18 May 2023)

Harmony Golf Mining (Pty) Ltd and Others v Lejweleputswa Community Engagement Structure and Others (502/2023) [2023] ZAFSHC 193 (18 May 2023)

The court found that the applicants established a clear right to conduct their mining operations without unlawful interference. The evidence, including aggressive communications and threats of a shutdown, justified a reasonable apprehension of injury. The respondents' right to protest is constitutionally protected but must be exercised peacefully and without infringing on the rights of others. The court held that criminal prosecution is not an adequate alternative remedy to an interdict. The requirements for a final interdict were met, and the scope for refusing relief was limited once these elements were established. The interim order was confirmed, excluding the subparagraph relating to...

Citation
[2023] ZAFSHC 193
Parties
Applicant: Harmony Gold Mining Company Limited; Applicant: Avgold Limited; Applicant: Freegold (Harmony) Pty Ltd; Respondent: Lejweleputswa Community Engagement Structure; Respondent: Thapelo Holland; Respondent: Mkhonto Mokoena; Respondent: Zenzile Mnyamane; Respondent: Thabang Tshaka; Respondent: Khothule; Respondent: Thabo Ramokoatsi; Respondent: Taibos Kleinbooi Nonyane; Respondent: Moipone Hlalele; Respondent: Oupa Malele; Respondent: Jar Ndade; Respondent: Azania Mokoma; Respondent: Ben Mcoqi; Respondent: Thabo Nthoka; Respondent: Zenzile Zulwayo; Respondent: Itumeleng Ramabenyane; Respondent: Ishmael Ngomana; Respondent: Joshua Mokhere; Respondent: Christinah Holland
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 May 2023
Case Number
502/2023
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Interdict After Interim Order and Opposition
Outcome
Final interdict granted; interim order confirmed with costs.
Judges
Mhlambi
Legal Topics
Final Interdict, Urgent Interdict, Mining Operations, Community Protest, Reasonable Apprehension of Harm
Civil Procedure Land and Property Final Interdict Urgent Interdict Mining Operations Community Protest Reasonable Apprehension of Harm

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Harmony Gold Mining Company Limited

Applicant

Avgold Limited

Applicant

Freegold (Harmony) Pty Ltd

Applicant

Lejweleputswa Community Engagement Structure

Respondent

Thapelo Holland

Respondent

Mkhonto Mokoena

Respondent

Zenzile Mnyamane

Respondent

Thabang Tshaka

Respondent

Khothule

Respondent

Thabo Ramokoatsi

Respondent

Taibos Kleinbooi Nonyane

Respondent

Moipone Hlalele

Respondent

Oupa Malele

Respondent

Jar Ndade

Respondent

Azania Mokoma

Respondent

Ben Mcoqi

Respondent

Thabo Nthoka

Respondent

Zenzile Zulwayo

Respondent

Itumeleng Ramabenyane

Respondent

Ishmael Ngomana

Respondent

Joshua Mokhere

Respondent

Christinah Holland

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Interdict After Interim Order and Opposition

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to a final interdict restraining the respondents from interfering with mining operations.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants have established a clear right, injury actually committed or reasonably apprehended, and absence of alternative remedy.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents' conduct constituted unlawful interference or was protected protest action.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants established a clear right to conduct their mining operations without unlawful interference. The evidence, including aggressive communications and threats of a shutdown, justified a reasonable apprehension of injury. The respondents' right to protest is constitutionally protected but must be exercised peacefully and without infringing on the rights of others. The court held that criminal prosecution is not an adequate alternative remedy to an interdict. The requirements for a final interdict were met, and the scope for refusing relief was limited once these elements were established. The interim order was confirmed, excluding the subparagraph relating to...

Court Disposition

Final interdict granted; interim order confirmed with costs.

Orders

  • Paragraphs 3.1 and 3.2 of the Rule Nisi (including all subparagraphs except subparagraph 3.2.3) are confirmed.
  • Respondents are interdicted and restrained from engaging in the specified activities against applicants' operations.