Palm Chrome (Pty) Ltd v 2 Glowing Sunset Trading 56 CC and Others (2023-080001) [2023] ZAGPPHC 760 (28 August 2023)

Palm Chrome (Pty) Ltd v 2 Glowing Sunset Trading 56 CC and Others (2023-080001) [2023] ZAGPPHC 760 (28 August 2023)

The court found that the applicant failed to establish urgency as required by Rule 6(12)(b). The applicant had knowledge of the disputed agreement and ongoing mining activities since November 2022 but delayed seeking relief. The application sought similar relief to a previous urgent application for which judgment was still pending, and launching another urgent application on the same facts was improper. The court held that the matter was not urgent and that the application constituted an abuse of process. Accordingly, the application was struck from the roll with costs on an attorney and client scale.

Citation
[2023] ZAGPPHC 760
Parties
Applicant: Palm Chrome (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: 2 Glowing Sunset Trading 56 CC; Respondent: Magedelie Malatji Chengeta; Respondent: All unlawful entrants and/or possessors and/or occupiers of the mining property consisting of portions 2,3,4 and 5 and a portion of portion 6 of the farm Palmietfonteint 208 Registration Division JP, Northwest Province; Respondent: Godfather Security and Cleaning Pty Ltd; Respondent: Bennito Motitswe; Respondent: The Minister of Police; Respondent: The Station Commander for SAPS, Sun City; Respondent: Minister: Department of Mineral Resource and Energy; Respondent: Department of Mineral Resources and Energy; Respondent: Bapolomiti Communal Property Association; Respondent: Minister: Department of Public Works; Respondent: Bathlalerwa Tradition Council
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 August 2023
Case Number
2023-080001
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application to Strike From the Roll for Lack of Urgency
Outcome
Application struck from the roll with costs on an attorney and client scale.
Judges
WJ du Plessis
Legal Topics
Urgency in Motion Proceedings, Mining Rights, Eviction, Abuse of Process
Civil Procedure Land and Property Urgency in Motion Proceedings Mining Rights Eviction 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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Palm Chrome (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

2 Glowing Sunset Trading 56 CC

Respondent

Magedelie Malatji Chengeta

Respondent

All unlawful entrants and/or possessors and/or occupiers of the mining property consisting of portions 2,3,4 and 5 and a portion of portion 6 of the farm Palmietfonteint 208 Registration Division JP, Northwest Province

Respondent

Godfather Security and Cleaning Pty Ltd

Respondent

Bennito Motitswe

Respondent

The Minister of Police

Respondent

The Station Commander for SAPS, Sun City

Respondent

Minister: Department of Mineral Resource and Energy

Respondent

Department of Mineral Resources and Energy

Respondent

Bapolomiti Communal Property Association

Respondent

Minister: Department of Public Works

Respondent

Bathlalerwa Tradition Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application to Strike From the Roll for Lack of Urgency

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application is urgent and should be heard as such.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is bound by the disputed agreement with the first respondent.
  3. 3 Whether the first respondent has any right to mine or prospect for chrome on the property.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to establish urgency as required by Rule 6(12)(b). The applicant had knowledge of the disputed agreement and ongoing mining activities since November 2022 but delayed seeking relief. The application sought similar relief to a previous urgent application for which judgment was still pending, and launching another urgent application on the same facts was improper. The court held that the matter was not urgent and that the application constituted an abuse of process. Accordingly, the application was struck from the roll with costs on an attorney and client scale.

Court Disposition

Application struck from the roll with costs on an attorney and client scale.

Orders

  • The application is struck from the roll with costs on an attorney and client scale.