Moloana and Others v Minister of the Department of Mineral Resources and Others (3346/2009) [2011] ZANWHC 44 (7 July 2011)

Moloana and Others v Minister of the Department of Mineral Resources and Others (3346/2009) [2011] ZANWHC 44 (7 July 2011)

The court found that the applicants had substantially complied with the prior order, and the procedural objections raised by the applicants were either no longer relevant or had been resolved by the previous order of Hendricks J, which was final and binding. The entitlement to the order and the proper institution of the application were res judicata and could not be revisited. The applicants' attorney's failure to engage constructively with the respondents' proposal led to unnecessary costs, and the respondents were entitled to costs on an opposed basis. The court ordered that the provisions and time periods of Uniform Rule 53 would apply to the further conduct of the main application,...

Citation
[2011] ZANWHC 44
Parties
Applicant: Sepulte Ofios Moloana; Applicant: Ntuke Phanuel Moloana; Applicant: Gallop Maleka; Applicant: Johanna Nkolo Moloana; Applicant: Carl Dibetso; Respondent: Minister of the Department of Mineral Resources; Respondent: Director General Department of Mineral Resources; Respondent: Regional Manager of the Department of Mineral Resources North West; Respondent: Officer in Charge of Mining Titles Registration; Respondent: MEC, Agriculture, Conservation and Environment, North West Province; Respondent: Merafe Resources; Respondent: Xstrata Alloys; Respondent: Merafe Xstrata Pooling and Sharing Venture; Respondent: Norah Mfelang
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 July 2011
Case Number
3346/2009
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Second Interlocutory Application Following Postponement and Compliance With Prior Court Order
Outcome
Application granted in part; costs awarded against the applicants in the main application (respondents in this interlocutory application).
Judges
A A Landman
Legal Topics
Uniform Rules of Court, Stay of Proceedings, Locus Standi, Mining Rights Conversion, Joinder of Parties, Costs Orders
Civil Procedure Land and Property Administrative Law Uniform Rules of Court Stay of Proceedings Locus Standi Mining Rights Conversion Joinder of Parties +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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sepulte Ofios Moloana

Applicant

Ntuke Phanuel Moloana

Applicant

Gallop Maleka

Applicant

Johanna Nkolo Moloana

Applicant

Carl Dibetso

Applicant

Minister of the Department of Mineral Resources

Respondent

Director General Department of Mineral Resources

Respondent

Regional Manager of the Department of Mineral Resources North West

Respondent

Officer in Charge of Mining Titles Registration

Respondent

MEC, Agriculture, Conservation and Environment, North West Province

Respondent

Merafe Resources

Respondent

Xstrata Alloys

Respondent

Merafe Xstrata Pooling and Sharing Venture

Respondent

Norah Mfelang

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Second Interlocutory Application Following Postponement and Compliance With Prior Court Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the stay of proceedings in the main application should endure following compliance with the prior court order.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants have complied with the requirements of Uniform Rule 53 and other procedural rules.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents are entitled to costs on an opposed basis.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants had substantially complied with the prior order, and the procedural objections raised by the applicants were either no longer relevant or had been resolved by the previous order of Hendricks J, which was final and binding. The entitlement to the order and the proper institution of the application were res judicata and could not be revisited. The applicants' attorney's failure to engage constructively with the respondents' proposal led to unnecessary costs, and the respondents were entitled to costs on an opposed basis. The court ordered that the provisions and time periods of Uniform Rule 53 would apply to the further conduct of the main application,...

Court Disposition

Application granted in part; costs awarded against the applicants in the main application (respondents in this interlocutory application).

Orders

  • The applicants in the main application (respondents in this application) are to pay the respondents' costs flowing from the order made by Hendricks J on 9 December 2010, including the costs related to this hearing, to be taxed on an opposed basis.
  • The provisions and time periods of Uniform Rule 53 are to apply to the further conduct of the main application as from the date when the intervention application has been finally determined, subject to such longer period as the applicants may require to furnish any further supplementary founding affidavits.