Makunyane and Another v Sithole and Others (2526/2024) [2024] ZAMPMHC 38 (17 July 2024)

Makunyane and Another v Sithole and Others (2526/2024) [2024] ZAMPMHC 38 (17 July 2024)

The court found that the applicants failed to establish urgency for the relief sought. Their application was based on unconfirmed hearsay and rumour regarding the alleged imminent disposal of the mining right, with no corroborating evidence provided. The applicants also failed to explain the delay of two to three years in challenging their removal as directors, which the court found to be self-created urgency. The court held that the applicants would be afforded substantial redress in the ordinary course and that the matter did not warrant urgent enrollment. Consequently, the application was struck from the roll due to lack of urgency, and costs were awarded to the respondents.

Citation
[2024] ZAMPMHC 38
Parties
Applicant: Comedy Motsepe Makunyane; Applicant: Bonginkosi Alex Reginald Nxumalo; Respondent: Masiwa Towell Sithole; Respondent: Allen Duroy; Respondent: Increadable Berachot Mining and Traders (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy; Respondent: Commissioner, Companies and Intellectual Property Commission
Court
Middelburg High Court, Mpumalanga
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 July 2024
Case Number
2526/2024
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Interim Interdict and Declaratory Relief
Outcome
Application struck from the roll due to lack of urgency; costs awarded to respondents.
Judges
MBG Langa
Legal Topics
Mining Rights, Company Directorship Dispute, Urgent Interdict, Ministerial Consent Transfer, Removal of Directors, Delay and Self Created Urgency
Land and Property Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Mining Rights Company Directorship Dispute Urgent Interdict Ministerial Consent Transfer Removal of Directors +1 more

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Comedy Motsepe Makunyane

Applicant

Bonginkosi Alex Reginald Nxumalo

Applicant

Masiwa Towell Sithole

Respondent

Allen Duroy

Respondent

Increadable Berachot Mining and Traders (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy

Respondent

Commissioner, Companies and Intellectual Property Commission

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Interim Interdict and Declaratory Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for interim interdict is urgent and should be heard on the urgent roll.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants have established a prima facie right to interdict the respondents from disposing of the mining right.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants have provided sufficient evidence of imminent disposal of the mining right.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to establish urgency for the relief sought. Their application was based on unconfirmed hearsay and rumour regarding the alleged imminent disposal of the mining right, with no corroborating evidence provided. The applicants also failed to explain the delay of two to three years in challenging their removal as directors, which the court found to be self-created urgency. The court held that the applicants would be afforded substantial redress in the ordinary course and that the matter did not warrant urgent enrollment. Consequently, the application was struck from the roll due to lack of urgency, and costs were awarded to the respondents.

Court Disposition

Application struck from the roll due to lack of urgency; costs awarded to respondents.

Orders

  • The application is struck from the roll due to lack of urgency.
  • The applicants are ordered to pay the costs of the application.