Samancor Chrome Ltd v VDH Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Others (344/19) [2020] ZASCA 96 (27 August 2020)

Samancor Chrome Ltd v VDH Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Others (344/19) [2020] ZASCA 96 (27 August 2020)

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that Samancor Chrome Limited had satisfied the statutory requirements to notify and consult with interested and affected parties under section 22(4)(b) of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act. The evidence showed that Samancor undertook a comprehensive public participation process, including direct engagement with communities, traditional authorities, and widespread notification efforts. The criticisms raised by the respondents regarding the adequacy of consultation were either unfounded or immaterial, and no affected community member had complained of exclusion. The High Court erred in finding that the consultation was inadequate and in...

Citation
[2020] ZASCA 96
Parties
Appellant: Samancor Chrome Limited; Respondent: VDH Holdings (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Absolute Group Management (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Minister of Mineral Resources; Respondent: Director-General: Department of Mineral Resources; Respondent: Deputy Director-General: Department of Mineral Resources; Respondent: Regional Manager, Limpopo Region: Department of Mineral Resources; Respondent: Minister of Environmental Affairs; Respondent: Kopanong Shopping Centre (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Minister of Public Works; Respondent: Limpopo Headmen’s Association
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 August 2020
Case Number
344/19
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Gauteng Division, Pretoria; Review of Minister's Decision; Cross Appeal and Applications to Intervene and Lead Further Evidence
Outcome
Appeal upheld; High Court order set aside; cross-appeal and applications to lead further evidence and to intervene dismissed.
Judges
Cachalia, Saldulker, Mbha, Van der Merwe, Matojane
Legal Topics
Mining Rights, Consultation With Affected Parties, Review of Administrative Action, Environmental Management Programme, Internal Appeal Process, Public Participation
Administrative Law Land and Property Mining Rights Consultation With Affected Parties Review of Administrative Action Environmental Management Programme Internal Appeal Process Public Participation

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Samancor Chrome Limited

Appellant

VDH Holdings (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Absolute Group Management (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Minister of Mineral Resources

Respondent

Director-General: Department of Mineral Resources

Respondent

Deputy Director-General: Department of Mineral Resources

Respondent

Regional Manager, Limpopo Region: Department of Mineral Resources

Respondent

Minister of Environmental Affairs

Respondent

Kopanong Shopping Centre (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Minister of Public Works

Respondent

Limpopo Headmen’s Association

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Gauteng Division, Pretoria; Review of Minister's Decision; Cross Appeal and Applications to Intervene and Lead Further Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Samancor Chrome Limited satisfied the statutory requirement to notify and consult with interested and affected parties under section 22(4)(b) of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act.
  2. 2 Whether the High Court was correct to set aside the Minister's decision granting a mining right to Samancor.
  3. 3 Whether the applications to lead further evidence and to intervene should be granted.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that Samancor Chrome Limited had satisfied the statutory requirements to notify and consult with interested and affected parties under section 22(4)(b) of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act. The evidence showed that Samancor undertook a comprehensive public participation process, including direct engagement with communities, traditional authorities, and widespread notification efforts. The criticisms raised by the respondents regarding the adequacy of consultation were either unfounded or immaterial, and no affected community member had complained of exclusion. The High Court erred in finding that the consultation was inadequate and in...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; High Court order set aside; cross-appeal and applications to lead further evidence and to intervene dismissed.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld with costs, such costs to be paid by the respondents jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved, including the costs attendant upon the employment of two counsel.
  • The order of the High Court dated 16 November 2018 is set aside and substituted with: 'The first and second respondents' application to review and set aside the decision of the Minister of Mineral Resources dated 31 October 2016 is dismissed with costs, such costs to include the costs of two counsel.'