Saidex (Pty) Ltd and Others v Minister of Minerals and Energy NO and Others (49/10) [2011] ZASCA 102 (1 June 2011)

Saidex (Pty) Ltd and Others v Minister of Minerals and Energy NO and Others (49/10) [2011] ZASCA 102 (1 June 2011)

The court held that the appellants failed to establish a prima facie right to the interim interdict. The 'tender business' model relied upon by the appellants was not authorised by the Diamonds Act, either before or after amendment, as it involved dealings with unlicensed foreigners, which the Act expressly prohibited. The reliance on a 1993 letter from the South African Diamond Board was insufficient, as the letter was not produced and its alleged exemption was not reflected in the appellants' licence conditions, which were issued after the letter and expressly forbade such conduct. The transitional provisions of the amended Act allowed the appellants to continue legitimate business...

Citation
[2011] ZASCA 102
Parties
Appellant: Saidex (Pty) Ltd; Appellant: Frits Stephanus Visser; Appellant: Este Minerals CC; Appellant: D & R Diamonds CC; Appellant: CS Diamonds CC; Appellant: Platinum Shadow Trade 101 (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: The Minister of Minerals and Energy NO; Respondent: The Department of Minerals and Energy; Respondent: SA Diamond & Precious Metal Regulator; Respondent: Martinus Mamphenyane Mononela NO
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 June 2011
Case Number
49/10
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Refusal of Interim Interdict in North Gauteng High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Lewis, Snyders, Shongwe, Theron, Majiedt
Legal Topics
Interim Interdict, Diamond Trade Regulation, Licensing Conditions, Transitional Provisions, Constitutional Challenge
Administrative Law Commercial and Corporate Interim Interdict Diamond Trade Regulation Licensing Conditions Transitional Provisions Constitutional Challenge

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Saidex (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Frits Stephanus Visser

Appellant

Este Minerals CC

Appellant

D & R Diamonds CC

Appellant

CS Diamonds CC

Appellant

Platinum Shadow Trade 101 (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

The Minister of Minerals and Energy NO

Respondent

The Department of Minerals and Energy

Respondent

SA Diamond & Precious Metal Regulator

Respondent

Martinus Mamphenyane Mononela NO

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Refusal of Interim Interdict in North Gauteng High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants established a prima facie right to an interim interdict pending constitutional challenge to amendments to the Diamonds Act.
  2. 2 Whether the 'tender business' conducted by the appellants was lawful under the Diamonds Act prior to amendment.
  3. 3 Whether the amendments to the Diamonds Act unlawfully deprived the appellants of their business rights.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the appellants failed to establish a prima facie right to the interim interdict. The 'tender business' model relied upon by the appellants was not authorised by the Diamonds Act, either before or after amendment, as it involved dealings with unlicensed foreigners, which the Act expressly prohibited. The reliance on a 1993 letter from the South African Diamond Board was insufficient, as the letter was not produced and its alleged exemption was not reflected in the appellants' licence conditions, which were issued after the letter and expressly forbade such conduct. The transitional provisions of the amended Act allowed the appellants to continue legitimate business...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.