Pan African Mineral Development Company (Pty) Ltd and Others v Aquila Steel (S Africa) (Pty) Ltd (179/2017) [2017] ZASCA 165; [2018] 1 All SA 414 (SCA); 2018 (5) SA 124 (SCA) (29 November 2017)

Pan African Mineral Development Company (Pty) Ltd and Others v Aquila Steel (S Africa) (Pty) Ltd (179/2017) [2017] ZASCA 165; [2018] 1 All SA 414 (SCA); 2018 (5) SA 124 (SCA) (29 November 2017)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that ZIZA, as holder of unused old order rights, lodged its prospecting right application within the exclusivity period provided by Item 8 of Schedule II to the MPRDA. Once accepted, both the right and exclusivity endured until the application was granted or refused. The Department of Mineral Resources was precluded from accepting and processing Aquila's later application while ZIZA's application was pending. Defects in ZIZA's application did not render its acceptance a nullity, as substantial compliance and supplementation were permitted. The Minister's refusal of Aquila's mining right application was lawful, as Aquila's prospecting right had lapsed and...

Citation
[2017] ZASCA 165
Parties
Appellant: Pan African Mineral Development Company (Pty) Ltd; Appellant: ZIZA Limited; Appellant: Minister of Mineral Resources; Appellant: Director-General of the Department of Mineral Resources; Appellant: Deputy Director-General: Mineral Regulation, Department of Mineral Resources; Appellant: Regional Manager: Northern Cape Region, Department of Mineral Resources; Respondent: Aquila Steel (S Africa) (Pty) Ltd
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 November 2017
Case Number
179/2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Gauteng Division, Pretoria
Outcome
Appeal upheld with costs; cross appeal dismissed with costs; high court's order set aside and replaced with dismissal of the application.
Judges
Ponnan, Bosielo, Willis, Mathopo, Tsoka
Legal Topics
Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act, Old Order Rights, Prospecting Rights, Administrative Review, Statutory Interpretation

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 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pan African Mineral Development Company (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

ZIZA Limited

Appellant

Minister of Mineral Resources

Appellant

Director-General of the Department of Mineral Resources

Appellant

Deputy Director-General: Mineral Regulation, Department of Mineral Resources

Appellant

Regional Manager: Northern Cape Region, Department of Mineral Resources

Appellant

Aquila Steel (S Africa) (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Gauteng Division, Pretoria

  1. 1 Whether the Department of Mineral Resources lawfully granted prospecting rights to two entities over the same land and minerals.
  2. 2 Whether the acceptance and processing of Aquila's application was precluded by ZIZA's pending application under the exclusivity period of Item 8 of Schedule II to the MPRDA.
  3. 3 Whether defects in ZIZA's application rendered its acceptance invalid and a nullity.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that ZIZA, as holder of unused old order rights, lodged its prospecting right application within the exclusivity period provided by Item 8 of Schedule II to the MPRDA. Once accepted, both the right and exclusivity endured until the application was granted or refused. The Department of Mineral Resources was precluded from accepting and processing Aquila's later application while ZIZA's application was pending. Defects in ZIZA's application did not render its acceptance a nullity, as substantial compliance and supplementation were permitted. The Minister's refusal of Aquila's mining right application was lawful, as Aquila's prospecting right had lapsed and...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld with costs; cross appeal dismissed with costs; high court's order set aside and replaced with dismissal of the application.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld with costs.
  • The cross appeal is dismissed with costs.