Monastery Diamond Mining Corporation (Pty) Ltd. v Schimper and Others (144/85) [1986] ZASCA 93 (17 September 1986)

Monastery Diamond Mining Corporation (Pty) Ltd. v Schimper and Others (144/85) [1986] ZASCA 93 (17 September 1986)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the apportionment of costs by the court a quo was justified and should not be disturbed. The court found that the furrow issue was of minor importance and that the majority of the proceedings related to the interdicts sought by the Schimpers. The issues raised by the parties were interrelated, and a composite order for costs was appropriate. The Schimpers were substantially successful, having obtained a permanent interdict restraining the company from mining outside the designated areas and the striking out of the company's attorney's affidavit. The company's arguments for further adjustment of costs and for setting aside the permanent interdict were...

Citation
[1986] ZASCA 93
Parties
Appellant: Monastery Diamond Mining Corporation (Pty) Ltd.; Respondent: Frans Johannes von Maltitz Schimper; Respondent: Margaretha Engela Schimper; Respondent: Minister of Mineral & Energy Affairs
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 September 1986
Case Number
144/85
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Orange Free State Provincial Division and Its Full Bench to the Supreme Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs. The orders of the court a quo are amended to reflect the formal concessions made by the respondents regarding costs apportionment.
Judges
Rabie, Jansen, Joubert, Boshoff, Nestadt
Legal Topics
Mineral Rights Lease, Interdict, Costs Apportionment, Precious Stones Act, Extra Statutory Permission
Land and Property Civil Procedure Mineral Rights Lease Interdict Costs Apportionment Precious Stones Act Extra Statutory Permission

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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Monastery Diamond Mining Corporation (Pty) Ltd.

Appellant

Frans Johannes von Maltitz Schimper

Respondent

Margaretha Engela Schimper

Respondent

Minister of Mineral & Energy Affairs

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Orange Free State Provincial Division and Its Full Bench to the Supreme Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the apportionment of costs by the court a quo was appropriate and justified.
  2. 2 Whether the permanent interdict restraining the company from mining outside the designated areas was correctly granted.
  3. 3 Whether the extra-statutory permission relied upon by the company was valid.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the apportionment of costs by the court a quo was justified and should not be disturbed. The court found that the furrow issue was of minor importance and that the majority of the proceedings related to the interdicts sought by the Schimpers. The issues raised by the parties were interrelated, and a composite order for costs was appropriate. The Schimpers were substantially successful, having obtained a permanent interdict restraining the company from mining outside the designated areas and the striking out of the company's attorney's affidavit. The company's arguments for further adjustment of costs and for setting aside the permanent interdict were...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs. The orders of the court a quo are amended to reflect the formal concessions made by the respondents regarding costs apportionment.

Orders

  • Prayer 1(a) of the notice of motion is refused.
  • No order is made on prayer 1(b)(i).