Saamwerk Soutwerke (Edms) Bpk v Sans Cuici Agri (Edms) Bpk (1176/2008) [2008] ZANCHC 60 (31 October 2008)
- Citation
- [2008] ZANCHC 60
- Status
- Ruling
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley
- Panel
- Majiedt R
- Case number
- 1176/2008
More details
- Court
- Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley
- Panel
- Majiedt R
- Case number
- 1176/2008
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The application for leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects of success. The court found that the applicant did not disclose material facts in its ex parte application, specifically its true motivation for seeking the order and its lack of legal existence at the time of applying for the mining right. The removal of salt was proven to be unlawful on the respondent's papers, and the applicant's mining right did not retrospectively authorize such conduct. Procedural objections raised by the applicant were unfounded, as the reconsideration process was properly regulated and the respondent's conditional counter-application did not proceed due to the court's approach. The core findings of the original judgment were not susceptible to reversal by another court, and any potential success on collateral aspects would be academic only.
Court disposition
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Orders
- The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
02
Material facts
Parties
Saamwerk Soutwerke (Edms) Bpk
Applicant Counsel: JC TredouxSans Cuici Agri (Edms) Bpk
Respondent Counsel: MH Wessels SC03
Procedural history
Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment and Costs Order
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the applicant has reasonable prospects of success on appeal against the judgment and orders of 19 September 2008.
- 02
Whether the applicant failed to disclose material facts in its ex parte application.
- 03
Whether the applicant existed as a legal entity when applying for a mining right under section 22(1) of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act.
- 04
Whether procedural irregularities occurred in the reconsideration of the ex parte order.
- 05
Whether the respondent's conditional counter-application should have been dismissed with costs.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant argued that the court erred in its findings, particularly regarding the alleged failure to consider the replying affidavits and the conclusion that the removal of accumulated salt was unlawful. The applicant contended that its mining right authorized the removal and that there was no proof of unlawful conduct. It further submitted that procedural errors occurred in the reconsideration process and that the respondent's conditional counter-application should have been dismissed with costs.
- Respondent
- The respondent maintained that the applicant failed to disclose material facts in its ex parte application, including its true motivation for seeking the order and its lack of legal existence at the time of applying for the mining right. The respondent argued that the removal of salt was proven to be unlawful and that the applicant's mining right did not retrospectively authorize such conduct. The respondent also clarified that its counter-application was conditional and did not proceed due to the court's procedural approach.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Westinghouse Brake and Equipment v Bilger Engineering 1986(2) SA 555 (A) at 560 H-I
A reasonable prospect of success on appeal is a prerequisite for leave to appeal.
- 02
Mogale and others v Seima 2008(5) SA 637 (SCA) at para [2] (638 I-J)
An appeal must be directed against a judgment and order, not collateral aspects raised during argument.
- 03
Plascon Evans Paints (Pty) Ltd v Van Riebeeck Paints (Pty) Ltd 1984(3) SA 620 (A) at 634 G – 635 C
Absolute good faith is required in ex parte applications; failure to disclose material facts justifies setting aside the order.
- 04
Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act, 29 of 2002
An application for a mining right must be made by a 'person' as defined in section 22(1) of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act; a company not yet incorporated cannot validly apply.
- 05
Boyce NO v Bloem and Others 1960(3) SA 855 (T) at 863 C-d
Prior knowledge of a party's legal status is relevant to the validity of its application.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The application for leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects of success. The court found that the applicant did not disclose material facts in its ex parte application, specifically its true motivation for seeking the order and its lack of legal existence at the time of applying for the mining right. The removal of salt was proven to be unlawful on the respondent's papers, and the applicant's mining right did not retrospectively authorize such conduct. Procedural objections raised by the applicant were unfounded, as the reconsideration process was properly regulated and the respondent's conditional counter-application did not proceed due to the court's approach. The core findings of the original judgment were not susceptible to reversal by another court, and any potential success on collateral aspects would be academic only.
Obiter and limits
- Even if the applicant succeeded on some collateral procedural points, such success would be academic and would not affect the outcome.
- The court clarified that the respondent's conditional counter-application fell away due to the procedural approach adopted, and thus no costs order was warranted against the respondent.
Court disposition
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
- The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
Source and reliance status
Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley
Ruling
Verslagwaardig: Ja / Nee
Sirkuleer aan Regters: Ja / Nee
Sirkuleer aan Landdroste: Ja / Nee
IN DIE HOOGGEREGSHOF VAN SUID-AFRIKA
(Noord-Kaapse Afdeling)
Saaknommer: 1176/2008
Datum Verhoor: 2008-10-24
Datum Gelewer: 2008-10-31
In die saak van:
SAAMWERK SOUTWERKE (EDMS) BPK APPLIKANT
versus
SANS CUICI AGRI (EDMS) BPK RESPONDENT
Coram:
MAJIEDT
R
UITSPRAAK
IN DIE AANSOEK OM VERLOF OM TE APPELLEER
MAJIEDT R:
Die Applikant doen aansoek om verlof om te appelleer teen my uitspraak en bevele van 19 September 2008 waarvolgens ek, by ‘n heroorweging ingevolge reël 6(12)(c) van ‘n bevel nisi verleen op ‘n dringende, ex parte-basis in kamers deur Moloi WnR, sodanige bevel tersyde gestel het en ‘n bestraffende kostebevel op ‘n prokureur-kliënt
skaal teen die Applikant gemaak het.
‘n Redelike vooruitsig op sukses op appél is, soos nou reeds welbekend, ‘n voorvereiste vir verlof om te appelleer.
Sien: Westinghouse Brake and Equipment v Bilger Engineering 1986(2) SA 555 (A) te 560 H-I.
Soos Harms AR tereg, met respek, aantoon in Mogale and others v Seima 2008(5) SA 637 (SCA) te par [2] (638 I-J), moet ‘n appél gemik wees teen ‘n uitspraak en ‘n bevel en nie teen sydelingse aspekte wat gedurende betoë te berde gebring is nie.
‘n Hele aantal gronde van appél is voorgehou deur die Applikant in sy kennisgewing, welke nader toegelig is deur die Applikant se advokaat, Mnr. Tredoux, in sy skriftelike en mondelinge betoë. ‘n Beduidende aantal van die gronde gaan juis mank aan die gebrek waarteen Harms AR waarsku in Mogale and Others v Seima, supra. ‘n Kompliserende faktor is dat Mnr. Tredoux nie in die hoofaansoek self verskyn het nie. As voorbeeld kan verwys word na die appélgrond dat ek glad nie die repliserende eedsverklarings, wat ongeveer ‘n uur voor die aanvang van die
verhoor tot my beskikking gekom het, deurgelees het nie en nie daarop ag geslaan het nie. Hierdie inligting het Mnr. Tredoux
klaarblyklik vanaf Mnr. Smit, wat toe vir die Applikant verskyn het, bekom. Hierdie inligting is onjuis, aangesien ek vir Mnr. Smit tydens die verhoor pertinent meegedeel het dat ek die repliserende eedsverklarings deurgelees het, alhoewel nie só volledig as wat ek graag sou wou doen nie.
‘n Hele aantal van die appélgronde en submissies handel met sydelings relevante aspekte. Die ratio decidendi van die uitspraak is dat die ex parte bevel nisi op heroorweging tersyde gestel moes word, omrede die Applikant versuim het om wesenlik relevante aspekte te openbaar in sy ex parte aansoek. Tot dié beslissing is daar gekom vanweë twee hoofoorweginge, naamlik:
4.1 Applikant se versweë werklike motivering met die ex parte aansoek, naamlik om die opgehoopte southope te verwyder vanaf Respondent se grond (onregmatiglik só volgens my bevinding); en
4.2 die feit dat Applikant nie as ‘n regsentiteit bestaan het toe sy aansoek vir ‘n mynreg ingedien is nie, m.a.w. die aansoek is nie ingedien deur ‘n “persoon” soos bedoel in art 22(1) van die Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act, 29 van 2002, (“die Wet”) nie.
In hierdie uitspraak handel ek grootliks slegs met hierdie kernbevindings.
Die aansoek is op uiters dringende basis en ex parte in kamers voor Moloi WnR gebring. Dis geykte reg dat absolute goeder trou vereis word by ex parte aansoeke. In hierdie geval het die Applikant heeltemal tekort geskiet vir die redes vervat in para. 16 van my uitspraak in die hoofaansoek.
Mnr. Tredoux het aangevoer dat daar nie bewys is dat opgehoopte sout wel verwyder is op onregmatige wyse nie. Hierdie submissie verloor buite die oog dat die benadering soos uiteengesit in Plascon Evans Paints (Pty) Ltd v Van Riebeeck Paints (Pty) Ltd 1984(3) SA 620 (A) te 634 G – 635 C hier toegepas is. Op die Respondent se stukke is sodanige verwydering wel bewys, na my mening. Wat onregmatigheid aanbetref kan die Applikant se gepoogde steun op sy tans verleende mynreg as magtiging vir sodanige verwydering, tog nooit opgaan nie. Ek is die mening toegedaan dat daar geen redelike vooruitsig bestaan dat ‘n ander Hof anders mag bevind nie.
Op die Applikant se eie weergawe en tot sy vooraf kennis het die Applikant maatskappy nog nie bestaan op 16 Mei 2005 toe in sy naam aansoek gedoen is vir ‘n mynreg nie, want Applikant is eers op 1 Julie 2005 geregistreer as ‘n maatskappy. My inagneming van Du Toit se vooraf kennis hieraangaande soos blyk uit ‘n eedsverklaring
jurat 10 Oktober 2007 in saaknr 540/2007 was gebaseer op die gesag in Boyce NO v Bloem and Others 1960(3) SA 855 (T) te 863 C-d. Ek verskil met Mnr. Tredoux dat ‘n ander Hof mag bevind dat ek verkeerd was met hierdie benadering en dat die voormelde gewysde nie as gesag dien vir só ‘n benadering nie.
Daar is na my mening dus geen redelike vooruitsigte van sukses in die voorgenome appél nie. Ek ag dit nodig om vlugtig met twee ander submissies wat gaan oor prosedurele aangeleenthede, te handel.
8.1 Mnr. Tredoux het aangevoer dat Moloi WnR alreeds op 21 Augustus 2008 (d.w.s. die volgende dag), sy oorspronklike ex parte bevel ooreenkomstig reël 6(12)(c) in heroorweging geneem het. Volgens sy submissie kon daar toe nie wéér op 5 September 2008, ‘n verdere heroorweging van die bevel plaasvind nie. Hierdie is ‘n wanopvatting. Al wat Moloi WnR gedoen het op 21 Augustus 2008, was om die verdere proses ingevolge reël 6(12)(c) te reguleer deur die aansoek vir heroorweging uit te stel na 5 September 2008, te reël vir die liassering van verdere stukke en dat die Applikant in die interim verbied word om sout te verwyder. Daar was inderwaarheid geen heroorweging soos bedoel in reël 6(12)(c) nie.
8.2 Mnr. Tredoux het verder aan die hand gedoen dat ek gefouteer het deur nie die Respondent se voorwaardelike teenaansoek af te wys met koste nie. Hierdie is eweneens ‘n wanopvatting. Die Respondent het sy teenaansoek gebring op voorwaarde dat die Hof die benadering volg waarkragtens geen verdere eedsverklarings geliasseer mag word nie en dat die oorspronklike aansoek op sy eie, sonder enigiets verder, oorweeg moet word. Ek het egter die teenoorgestelde benadering nagevolg en het verdere eedsverklarings toegelaat. Die voorwaarde vir die teenaansoek het dus weggeval en is daar nie voortgegaan met die teenaansoek nie.
Opsommenderwys dus – selfs al is daar ‘n moontlikheid dat die Applikant kan slaag met sy submissies op sommige van die aantal sydelingse aspekte, sou dit bloot akademies van aard wees. Wat die kernbevindinge aanbetref meen ek dat daar geen redelike vooruitsigte op sukses in die voorgenome appél bestaan nie, vir die redes hierbo uiteengesit.
BEVEL
Die aansoek vir verlof om te appelleer word afgewys met koste.
___
SA MAJIEDT
REGTER
NAMENS APPLIKANT : ADV
JC TREDOUX
IN OPDRAG VAN : VAN
DE WALL EN VENNOTE
NAMENS RESPONDENT : ADV MH WESSELS SC
IN OPDRAG VAN : DUNCAN & ROTHMAN
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.