Rustenburg Platinum Mines Limited and Another v The Regional Manager, Limpopo Region, Department of Mineral Resources and Others (1109/2020) [2022] ZASCA 157 (18 November 2022)

Rustenburg Platinum Mines Limited and Another v The Regional Manager, Limpopo Region, Department of Mineral Resources and Others (1109/2020) [2022] ZASCA 157 (18 November 2022)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the refusal of RPM's prospecting right application was lawful and rational under section 17(2) of the MPRDA. The DDG's decision was based on RPM's dominant position in the platinum mining sector and the need to promote equitable access and transformation, consistent with the objectives of the MPRDA. The transitional provisions did not override the substantive requirements of section 17(2). The acceptance and granting of prospecting rights to Bauba and Genorah, even if irregular, were of no practical effect as a prospecting right is not a prerequisite for a mining right. The delays in prosecuting the review application were significant, but the court...

Citation
[2022] ZASCA 157
Parties
Appellant: Rustenburg Platinum Mines Limited; Appellant: ARM Mining Consortium Limited; Respondent: The Regional Manager, Limpopo Region, Department of Mineral Resources; Respondent: Deputy Director-General: Mineral Regulation, DMR; Respondent: Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy; Respondent: Genorah Resources (Pty) Limited; Respondent: Director-General, DMR; Respondent: Nkwe Platinum (South Africa) (Pty) Limited; Respondent: International Goldfields Limited; Respondent: Moruthane Ben Sekhukhune N O; Respondent: Bauba A Hlabirwa Mining Investments (Pty) Limited; Respondent: Nkwe Platinum Limited
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 November 2022
Case Number
1109/2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel, payable by the second appellant.
Judges
Dambuza, Van der Merwe, Nicholls, Mbatha, Meyer
Legal Topics
Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act, Prospecting Rights, Review of Administrative Action, Unreasonable Delay, Concentration of Mineral Rights
Administrative Law Land and Property Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act Prospecting Rights Review of Administrative Action Unreasonable Delay Concentration of Mineral Rights

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

Parties

Rustenburg Platinum Mines Limited

Appellant

ARM Mining Consortium Limited

Appellant

The Regional Manager, Limpopo Region, Department of Mineral Resources

Respondent

Deputy Director-General: Mineral Regulation, DMR

Respondent

Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy

Respondent

Genorah Resources (Pty) Limited

Respondent

Director-General, DMR

Respondent

Nkwe Platinum (South Africa) (Pty) Limited

Respondent

International Goldfields Limited

Respondent

Moruthane Ben Sekhukhune N O

Respondent

Bauba A Hlabirwa Mining Investments (Pty) Limited

Respondent

Nkwe Platinum Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the refusal of the prospecting right application by RPM was lawful under section 17(2) of the MPRDA.
  2. 2 Whether the acceptance and granting of prospecting rights to Bauba and Genorah were valid given RPM's exclusivity period and pending applications.
  3. 3 Whether the delay in instituting and prosecuting the review application was fatal to the proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the refusal of RPM's prospecting right application was lawful and rational under section 17(2) of the MPRDA. The DDG's decision was based on RPM's dominant position in the platinum mining sector and the need to promote equitable access and transformation, consistent with the objectives of the MPRDA. The transitional provisions did not override the substantive requirements of section 17(2). The acceptance and granting of prospecting rights to Bauba and Genorah, even if irregular, were of no practical effect as a prospecting right is not a prerequisite for a mining right. The delays in prosecuting the review application were significant, but the court...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel, payable by the second appellant.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel, which costs shall be paid by the second appellant.