RM Business Solutions (Pty) Ltd v Thungela Operations (Pty) Ltd and Others (2178/2022) [2022] ZAMPMHC 18 (17 October 2022)

RM Business Solutions (Pty) Ltd v Thungela Operations (Pty) Ltd and Others (2178/2022) [2022] ZAMPMHC 18 (17 October 2022)

The court found that there is a genuine and irreconcilable dispute of fact regarding whether the applicant is mining within the correct area as designated by its mining permit. The evidence presented by both parties, including expert opinions, could not resolve the dispute on the papers. The court held that the matter must be referred to trial for oral evidence to determine the precise location of the applicant's mining activities relative to the permit. The court reserved the costs for determination at the trial and ordered discovery in terms of Uniform Rule 35.

Citation
[2022] ZAMPMHC 18
Parties
Applicant: RM Business Solutions (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Thungela Operations (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Minister of Police; Respondent: National Commissioner of Police; Respondent: Provincial Commissioner of Police, Mpumalanga Province; Respondent: Station Commander, Vosman Police Station; Respondent: Minister, Department of Mineral Resources and Energy; Respondent: Director-General of Mineral Resources
Court
Middelburg High Court, Mpumalanga
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 October 2022
Case Number
2178/2022
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Referral to Trial for Oral Evidence
Outcome
Matter referred to trial for oral evidence; costs reserved.
Judges
MBG Langa
Legal Topics
Mining Permit Dispute, Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act, Interdict, Discovery Procedure, Internal Remedies Exhaustion
Land and Property Civil Procedure Administrative Law Mining Permit Dispute Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act Interdict Discovery Procedure Internal Remedies Exhaustion

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

RM Business Solutions (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Thungela Operations (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Minister of Police

Respondent

National Commissioner of Police

Respondent

Provincial Commissioner of Police, Mpumalanga Province

Respondent

Station Commander, Vosman Police Station

Respondent

Minister, Department of Mineral Resources and Energy

Respondent

Director-General of Mineral Resources

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Referral to Trial for Oral Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is mining within the correct area as designated by its mining permit.
  2. 2 Whether the evidence presented by the parties is sufficient to resolve the dispute on the papers.
  3. 3 Whether the first respondent has exhausted internal remedies under the MPRDA before seeking relief.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that there is a genuine and irreconcilable dispute of fact regarding whether the applicant is mining within the correct area as designated by its mining permit. The evidence presented by both parties, including expert opinions, could not resolve the dispute on the papers. The court held that the matter must be referred to trial for oral evidence to determine the precise location of the applicant's mining activities relative to the permit. The court reserved the costs for determination at the trial and ordered discovery in terms of Uniform Rule 35.

Court Disposition

Matter referred to trial for oral evidence; costs reserved.

Orders

  • The matter is referred to trial for the hearing of oral evidence on whether the applicant is mining within the correct area as designated by its mining permit.
  • Each party shall, within 21 days of this order, make discovery in accordance with Uniform Rule 35 of the Rules of Court.