Liciano Coal (Pty) Ltd v Assmang Ltd and Another (2406/2016) [2016] ZANCHC 39 (2 December 2016)

Liciano Coal (Pty) Ltd v Assmang Ltd and Another (2406/2016) [2016] ZANCHC 39 (2 December 2016)

The court found that the applicant was entitled to restoration of access to the property, as the previous order of Pakati J did not lapse due to late payment. The payments referred to in the order related to obligations during the operation of the interim interdict, not the initial payment, and Assmang could not rely on late payment to deny access. The breaches alleged by Assmang were either not relevant to the applicant or not properly invoked under the Access agreement, which required written notice and opportunity to remedy. The court held that the applicant had no adequate alternative remedy, as damages would not provide similar protection, and the urgency was justified given the...

Citation
[2016] ZANCHC 39
Parties
Applicant: Liciano Coal (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Assmang Ltd; Respondent: Ochre Shimmer Trade and Invest 78 (Pty) Ltd
Court
Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 December 2016
Case Number
2406/2016
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Judgment After Urgent Application
Outcome
Application granted; access to property restored; costs awarded to applicant.
Judges
Williams
Legal Topics
Interim Interdict, Access to Property, Breach of Contract, Prospecting Rights, Urgent Application
Land and Property Civil Procedure Interim Interdict Access to Property Breach of Contract Prospecting Rights Urgent Application

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Liciano Coal (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Assmang Ltd

Respondent

Ochre Shimmer Trade and Invest 78 (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Judgment After Urgent Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to restoration of access to the property known as Farm Doornfontein 446.
  2. 2 Whether the first respondent was justified in denying the applicant access to the property after payment was made.
  3. 3 Whether the order of Pakati J had lapsed due to late payment by the applicant.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant was entitled to restoration of access to the property, as the previous order of Pakati J did not lapse due to late payment. The payments referred to in the order related to obligations during the operation of the interim interdict, not the initial payment, and Assmang could not rely on late payment to deny access. The breaches alleged by Assmang were either not relevant to the applicant or not properly invoked under the Access agreement, which required written notice and opportunity to remedy. The court held that the applicant had no adequate alternative remedy, as damages would not provide similar protection, and the urgency was justified given the...

Court Disposition

Application granted; access to property restored; costs awarded to applicant.

Orders

  • First respondent is ordered to restore the applicant's access to the property known as Farm Doornfontein 446 forthwith.
  • First respondent is interdicted and restrained from refusing or in any way prohibiting the applicant access to the property known as Farm Doornfontein 446.