Langa and Others v Ivanplats (Pty) Ltd and Others (92090/2016) [2017] ZAGPPHC 829 (16 February 2017)

Langa and Others v Ivanplats (Pty) Ltd and Others (92090/2016) [2017] ZAGPPHC 829 (16 February 2017)

The applicants failed to establish a clear or prima facie right to an interdict restraining the relocation of graves. The majority of next-of-kin had consented to the relocations and entered into binding MOUs with Ivanplats, and those with a direct and substantial interest were not joined as parties, rendering the application fatally defective for non-joinder. The statutory requirements for consultation and agreement under the National Heritage Resources Act were met, and the permits were lawfully issued. The application for review was out of time under PAJA, with no condonation sought or factual basis for condonation provided. The argument that the relocation unlawfully amended the...

Citation
[2017] ZAGPPHC 829
Parties
Applicant: Aubrey Langa and 16 Others; Respondent: Ivanplats (Pty) Ltd and 19 Others
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
16 February 2017
Case Number
92090/2016
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Return Day of Rule Nisi; Discharge of Interim Interdict and Costs
Outcome
Application dismissed; rule nisi discharged; no order as to costs.
Judges
Murphy
Legal Topics
National Heritage Resources Act, Mining Rights, Interim Interdict, Joinder, Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Consultation Requirements
Administrative Law Land and Property National Heritage Resources Act Mining Rights Interim Interdict Joinder Promotion of Administrative Justice Act Consultation Requirements

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 6 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Aubrey Langa and 16 Others

Applicant

Ivanplats (Pty) Ltd and 19 Others

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Return Day of Rule Nisi; Discharge of Interim Interdict and Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants established a clear or prima facie right to an interdict restraining the relocation of graves.
  2. 2 Whether the requirements for joinder of interested parties were satisfied.
  3. 3 Whether the administrative decisions to permit grave relocation were lawful under the National Heritage Resources Act and PAJA.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants failed to establish a clear or prima facie right to an interdict restraining the relocation of graves. The majority of next-of-kin had consented to the relocations and entered into binding MOUs with Ivanplats, and those with a direct and substantial interest were not joined as parties, rendering the application fatally defective for non-joinder. The statutory requirements for consultation and agreement under the National Heritage Resources Act were met, and the permits were lawfully issued. The application for review was out of time under PAJA, with no condonation sought or factual basis for condonation provided. The argument that the relocation unlawfully amended the...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; rule nisi discharged; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The rule nisi issued on 28 November 2016 is discharged.
  • There is no order as to costs.