Saamwerk Soutwerke (Edms) Bpk v Sans Cuici Agri (Edms) Bpk (1176/2008) [2008] ZANCHC 42 (19 September 2008)

Saamwerk Soutwerke (Edms) Bpk v Sans Cuici Agri (Edms) Bpk (1176/2008) [2008] ZANCHC 42 (19 September 2008)

The court found that the applicant failed to disclose material facts in its ex parte urgent application, including the origin and legality of the salt heaps and the absence of a valid mining permit for their removal. The applicant's mining right did not authorise the removal of salt mined prior to its grant, and its reliance on section 5(3)(c) of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act was misplaced. The urgency alleged by the applicant was not substantiated, and the factual background presented to the court at the initial hearing was incomplete and misleading. The court exercised its discretion under Rule 6(12)(c) to set aside the interim order granted on 20 August 2008....

Citation
[2008] ZANCHC 42
Parties
Applicant: Saamwerk Soutwerke (Edms) Bpk; Respondent: Sans Cuici Agri (Edms) Bpk
Court
Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 September 2008
Case Number
1176/2008
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Reconsideration of Ex Parte Interim Order Under Rule 6(12)(c)
Outcome
Application for reconsideration granted; interim order of 20 August 2008 set aside; condonation for late filing of replying affidavit granted; punitive costs order against applicant.
Judges
Majiedt R
Legal Topics
Ex Parte Interim Orders, Urgent Applications, Mining Rights, Condonation, Costs Award
Civil Procedure Land and Property Ex Parte Interim Orders Urgent Applications Mining Rights Condonation Costs Award

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

Saamwerk Soutwerke (Edms) Bpk

Applicant

Sans Cuici Agri (Edms) Bpk

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Reconsideration of Ex Parte Interim Order Under Rule 6(12)(c)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant disclosed all material facts in its ex parte urgent application for interim relief.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was authorised to remove salt from the property under its mining right.
  3. 3 Whether the interim order granted on 20 August 2008 should be set aside upon reconsideration under Rule 6(12)(c).

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to disclose material facts in its ex parte urgent application, including the origin and legality of the salt heaps and the absence of a valid mining permit for their removal. The applicant's mining right did not authorise the removal of salt mined prior to its grant, and its reliance on section 5(3)(c) of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act was misplaced. The urgency alleged by the applicant was not substantiated, and the factual background presented to the court at the initial hearing was incomplete and misleading. The court exercised its discretion under Rule 6(12)(c) to set aside the interim order granted on 20 August 2008....

Court Disposition

Application for reconsideration granted; interim order of 20 August 2008 set aside; condonation for late filing of replying affidavit granted; punitive costs order against applicant.

Orders

  • Condonation is granted for the late filing of the applicant's replying affidavit.
  • The interim order (bevel nisi) of 20 August 2008 is set aside in its entirety.