Makole Resources (PTY) Ltd & Another v Rockblend Manufacturing CC & Others (15736/2016) [2016] ZAGPPHC 1139 (21 October 2016)

Makole Resources (PTY) Ltd & Another v Rockblend Manufacturing CC & Others (15736/2016) [2016] ZAGPPHC 1139 (21 October 2016)

The applicants failed to disclose material facts, specifically their lack of zoning approval for mining operations, which was a critical requirement for the relief sought. The founding affidavit did not contain allegations against the first, second, and third respondents, and the replying affidavit was filed late without condonation, rendering it inadmissible. The rule nisi was not extended and had lapsed. The applicants did not establish a clear right to the interdict, and their conduct amounted to an abuse of process. The court discharged the rule nisi and awarded punitive costs against the applicants.

Citation
[2016] ZAGPPHC 1139
Parties
Applicant: Makole Resources (PTY) Ltd; Applicant: Black Royalty Minerals (PTY) Ltd; Respondent: Rockblend Manufacturing CC; Respondent: Kevin Nelson; Respondent: Owen Nelson; Respondent: Zwelakhe Sithole N.O.; Respondent: Leah Madalane N.O.; Respondent: Petrus Gerhardus Human N.O.; Respondent: Bangiswani Ketty Phalatse N.O.; Respondent: Helena Geldenhuys N.O.; Respondent: Mawatile Jeremiah Mojalefa N.O.; Respondent: Pieter Jacobus Bender N.O.; Respondent: Robert Graham Ransom N.O.; Respondent: David Masanabo N.O.; Respondent: Themba Tshabangu N.O.; Respondent: Dineo Nyana Siko N.O.; Respondent: Dineo Nyana Siko; Respondent: Andries Skosana; Respondent: Tshepo Mlala; Respondent: Charles Masango; Respondent: L. Msibi; Respondent: Rockshield; Respondent: The City of Tshwane
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 October 2016
Case Number
15736/2016
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Final Interdict Following Interim Rule Nisi
Outcome
Application dismissed; rule nisi discharged; punitive costs awarded against applicants.
Judges
E.L. Swartz
Legal Topics
Interdictory Relief, Urgent Application, Zoning Permission, Abuse of Process
Civil Procedure Land and Property Interdictory Relief Urgent Application Zoning Permission Abuse of Process

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Makole Resources (PTY) Ltd

Applicant

Black Royalty Minerals (PTY) Ltd

Applicant

Rockblend Manufacturing CC

Respondent

Kevin Nelson

Respondent

Owen Nelson

Respondent

Zwelakhe Sithole N.O.

Respondent

Leah Madalane N.O.

Respondent

Petrus Gerhardus Human N.O.

Respondent

Bangiswani Ketty Phalatse N.O.

Respondent

Helena Geldenhuys N.O.

Respondent

Mawatile Jeremiah Mojalefa N.O.

Respondent

Pieter Jacobus Bender N.O.

Respondent

Robert Graham Ransom N.O.

Respondent

David Masanabo N.O.

Respondent

Themba Tshabangu N.O.

Respondent

Dineo Nyana Siko N.O.

Respondent

Dineo Nyana Siko

Respondent

Andries Skosana

Respondent

Tshepo Mlala

Respondent

Charles Masango

Respondent

L. Msibi

Respondent

Rockshield

Respondent

The City of Tshwane

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Final Interdict Following Interim Rule Nisi

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to a final interdict restraining the respondents from interfering with their mining operations.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants disclosed all material facts necessary for the granting of interim relief.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants have established a clear right to conduct mining operations on the property.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants failed to disclose material facts, specifically their lack of zoning approval for mining operations, which was a critical requirement for the relief sought. The founding affidavit did not contain allegations against the first, second, and third respondents, and the replying affidavit was filed late without condonation, rendering it inadmissible. The rule nisi was not extended and had lapsed. The applicants did not establish a clear right to the interdict, and their conduct amounted to an abuse of process. The court discharged the rule nisi and awarded punitive costs against the applicants.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; rule nisi discharged; punitive costs awarded against applicants.

Orders

  • The rule nisi is discharged.
  • The applicants are ordered to pay the costs of the first to fourteenth respondents on the attorney-client scale, including costs reserved on 10 March 2016, 20 April 2016, 6 June 2016 and 17 October 2016.