Sand Hawks (Pty) Ltd and Another v Labonte 5 (Pty) Ltd and Others (190/2023) [2024] ZASCA 122; [2024] 4 All SA 359 (SCA) (16 August 2024)

Sand Hawks (Pty) Ltd and Another v Labonte 5 (Pty) Ltd and Others (190/2023) [2024] ZASCA 122; [2024] 4 All SA 359 (SCA) (16 August 2024)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the doctrine of functus officio applies only to final decisions. The Regional Manager's acceptance of Labonte's mining right application was a preliminary, clerical step under s 22 of the MPRDA, not a final decision, and thus could be corrected when the error was discovered. Labonte's application remained compliant and retained its place in the queue. The Director-General failed to properly consider the condonation for Sand Hawks' late appeal, neglecting to address the extent and cause of the delay, the explanation provided, and other relevant factors. The decision to grant condonation was irrational and unlawful. The Regional Manager's decision...

Citation
[2024] ZASCA 122
Parties
Appellant: Sand Hawks (Pty) Ltd; Appellant: Seacrest Investments 129 (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Labonte 5 (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: The Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy; Respondent: The Director General: Department of Mineral Resources and Energy; Respondent: The Deputy Director-General: Department of Mineral Resources and Energy; Respondent: The Regional Manager: Mineral Regulation: Limpopo Region, Department of Mineral Resources and Energy
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
16 August 2024
Case Number
190/2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel where so employed.
Judges
Mocumie, Meyer, Goosen, Koen, Seegobin
Legal Topics
Mining Rights, Functus Officio, Condonation, Internal Appeal, Promotion of Administrative Justice Act
Administrative Law Land and Property Mining Rights Functus Officio Condonation Internal Appeal Promotion of Administrative Justice Act

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 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sand Hawks (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Seacrest Investments 129 (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Labonte 5 (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

The Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy

Respondent

The Director General: Department of Mineral Resources and Energy

Respondent

The Deputy Director-General: Department of Mineral Resources and Energy

Respondent

The Regional Manager: Mineral Regulation: Limpopo Region, Department of Mineral Resources and Energy

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director-General's decision on 19 December 2019 regarding the internal appeal lodged by Sand Hawks should be declared unlawful and set aside.
  2. 2 Whether the Regional Manager was functus officio after partially accepting Labonte's mining right application, or whether he retained authority to correct his decision.
  3. 3 Whether the Director-General irrationally and unreasonably condoned the late filing of Sand Hawks' appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the doctrine of functus officio applies only to final decisions. The Regional Manager's acceptance of Labonte's mining right application was a preliminary, clerical step under s 22 of the MPRDA, not a final decision, and thus could be corrected when the error was discovered. Labonte's application remained compliant and retained its place in the queue. The Director-General failed to properly consider the condonation for Sand Hawks' late appeal, neglecting to address the extent and cause of the delay, the explanation provided, and other relevant factors. The decision to grant condonation was irrational and unlawful. The Regional Manager's decision...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel where so employed.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel where so employed.
  • The High Court's order is upheld, including the remittal of both internal appeals to the Director-General for proper consideration and decision within three months.