Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy and Another v Assmang Proprietary Limited (Leave to Appeal) (13164/2022 ; 13165/2022 ; 13166/2022) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1189 (18 November 2024)
The court found that the applicants failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects of success on appeal. The grounds for appeal did not raise any novel or complex issues, and the applicants did not adequately differentiate between the relief granted in the present matter and the pending appeals under section 96 of the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] ZAGPPHC 1189
- Parties
- Applicant: Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy; Applicant: Regional Manager: Mineral Regulation, Northern Cape Regional Office; Respondent: Assmang Proprietary Limited
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- 13164/2022 ; 13165/2022 ; 13166/2022
- Procedural Posture
- Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment and Order Delivered on 20 November 2023.
- Outcome
- Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs of one counsel on scale B.
- Judges
- E van der Schyff
- Legal Topics
- Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act, Leave to Appeal, Prospects of Success, Costs Award
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy
Applicant
Regional Manager: Mineral Regulation, Northern Cape Regional Office
Applicant
Assmang Proprietary Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment and Order Delivered on 20 November 2023.
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the application for leave to appeal should be granted.
- 2 Whether the appeal has reasonable prospects of success.
- 3 Whether the costs of two counsel are justified for the respondent in the leave to appeal application.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicants failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects of success on appeal. The grounds for appeal did not raise any novel or complex issues, and the applicants did not adequately differentiate between the relief granted in the present matter and the pending appeals under section 96 of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed. Regarding costs, the court held that the application for leave to appeal was straightforward and did not warrant the employment of two counsel for the respondent; costs were awarded for one counsel only.
Court Disposition
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs of one counsel on scale B.
Orders
- The first and second applicants' application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs of one counsel on scale B.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
41 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
CASE NO.: 13164/2022
13165/2022
13166/2022
(1) REPORTABLE: NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO (3) REVISED: NO Date: 18 November 2024 Signature: E van der Schyff
In the application for leave to appeal between:
The Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy First Applicant
Regional Manager: Mineral Regulation
Northern Cape Regional Office
Second Applicant
and
Assmang Proprietary Limited
Respondent
JUDGMENT
Van der Schyff J
[1] This is an application for leave to appeal against a judgment and order handed down on 20 November 2023. The applicants in this application were the first and second respondents in the respective applications before me. They are referred to as cited in this application.
[2] The judgment handed down on 20 November 2023 is comprehensive and contains the reasons for the judgment. It is in the interest of justice to consider this application for leave to appeal despite the respondent’s contention that it was issued late.
[3] I considered the grounds for appeal. I am of the opinion that another court would not come to a different view. The appeal does not have a reasonable prospect of success. The applicants mainly fail to differentiate between the nature of the relief sought and granted in this court, and the nature of the appeals in terms of section 96 of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act 28 of 2002, which are pending.
[4] In the result, the application for leave to appeal stands to be dismissed.
[5] As far as costs are concerned, I am not convinced that the matter required the involvement of two counsel on the respondent’s side. The main applications were rather complex, but the application for leave to appeal was straightforward, and no novel or complex issues were raised.
ORDER
In the result, the following order is granted:
1. The first and second applicant’s application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs of one counsel on scale B.
E van der Schyff
Judge of the High Court
Delivered: This judgment is handed down electronically by uploading it to the electronic file of this matter on CaseLines. As a courtesy gesture, it will be emailed to the parties/their legal representatives.
For the first and second applicants: Adv. L Gumbi
Instructed by:
The State Attorney
For the respondent:
Adv. E Eksteen
With:
Adv. R. Molefe
Instructed by:
Werkmans Attorneys
Date of the hearing:
12 November 2024
Date of judgment:
18 November 2024