Save the Maize Belt Society v Regional Mining Development And Environment Committe and Others (2014/15881) [2015] ZAGPJHC 254 (26 March 2015)

Save the Maize Belt Society v Regional Mining Development And Environment Committe and Others (2014/15881) [2015] ZAGPJHC 254 (26 March 2015)

The court found that no recommendation was made by the Mining Committee on 16 April 2014 that could have prejudicial consequences for the applicant. The applicant failed to demonstrate that any substantive or procedural irregularity resulted in an adverse decision. The challenge to the applicant's legal status was...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2015] ZAGPJHC 254
Parties
Applicant: Save the Maize Belt Society; Respondent: Regional Mining Development And Environmental Committe; Respondent: Dialstat Trading 115 (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Regional Manager (Mpumalanga) - Department Mineral Resources; Respondent: Spigan Mine Management (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Deputy Director-General Mineral Resources (Mpumalanga); Respondent: Director-General Department of Mineral Resources; Respondent: Minister of Mineral Resources
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 March 2015
Case Number
2014/15881
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Interim Interdict Pending Review; Application for Urgent Relief
Outcome
Application dismissed; applicant not precluded from instituting fresh review proceedings if a recommendation is made.
Legal Topics
Mining Rights, Procedural Fairness, Environmental Management Programme, Delegation of Powers, Review of Administrative Action, Costs in Constitutional Litigation
Administrative Law Environmental Law Land and Property Mining Rights Procedural Fairness Environmental Management Programme Delegation of Powers Review of Administrative Action +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Save the Maize Belt Society

Applicant

Regional Mining Development And Environmental Committe

Respondent

Dialstat Trading 115 (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Regional Manager (Mpumalanga) - Department Mineral Resources

Respondent

Spigan Mine Management (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Deputy Director-General Mineral Resources (Mpumalanga)

Respondent

Director-General Department of Mineral Resources

Respondent

Minister of Mineral Resources

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Interim Interdict Pending Review; Application for Urgent Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Mining Committee made a recommendation on 16 April 2014 prejudicial to the applicant.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to urgent interim interdictory relief pending review.
  3. 3 Whether the Mining Committee meeting was procedurally unfair or unlawfully constituted.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that no recommendation was made by the Mining Committee on 16 April 2014 that could have prejudicial consequences for the applicant. The applicant failed to demonstrate that any substantive or procedural irregularity resulted in an adverse decision. The challenge to the applicant's legal status was dismissed as lacking merit. The record did not support grounds for recusal of the chairperson, nor did it show bias or procedural unfairness. The application was not frivolous or vexatious, and the ordinary rule regarding costs in constitutional litigation applied. The application for urgent interim relief was dismissed, but the applicant was not precluded from instituting fresh...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; applicant not precluded from instituting fresh review proceedings if a recommendation is made.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The applicant is not precluded from instituting review proceedings afresh if the first respondent makes recommendations in relation to the second respondent's application for a mining right, but must do so by instituting a new substantive application under a new case number.