Wiseman v De Pinna and Others (126/85) [1985] ZASCA 100; [1986] 1 All SA 341 (A) (25 September 1985)

Wiseman v De Pinna and Others (126/85) [1985] ZASCA 100; [1986] 1 All SA 341 (A) (25 September 1985)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the agreement of 3 November 1980 was not a 'lease of rights to minerals in land' within the meaning of section 3(1) of the General Law Amendment Act 50 of 1956. The Court reasoned that the technical legal meaning of 'lease of rights to minerals' refers to mineral leases as understood in common law and historical statutes, not to leases of claim licences granted under mining legislation. The omission of any reference to leases of claims in section 3(1), as opposed to earlier statutes, indicated a legislative intent to exclude such agreements from the formal requirements of notarial attestation and registration in the Deeds Office. The Court found that...

Citation
[1985] ZASCA 100
Parties
Appellant: Edwin Wiseman; Respondent: Michael de Pinna; Respondent: William Douglas Porteous; Respondent: Eldorado Gold Mines (Pty) Ltd
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 September 1985
Case Number
126/85
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Full Bench of Transvaal Provincial Division
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Corbett, Joubert, Helen, Grosskopf, Nicholas
Legal Topics
Mineral Rights, Lease Formalities, Notarial Attestation, Registration of Rights
Land and Property Mineral Rights Lease Formalities Notarial Attestation Registration of Rights

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 35 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Edwin Wiseman

Appellant

Michael de Pinna

Respondent

William Douglas Porteous

Respondent

Eldorado Gold Mines (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Full Bench of Transvaal Provincial Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the agreement of 3 November 1980 constitute a 'lease of rights to minerals in land' under section 3(1) of the General Law Amendment Act 50 of 1956?
  2. 2 Is the agreement invalid for lack of notarial attestation?
  3. 3 Does section 3(2) of the Act exempt the agreement from the formal requirements of section 3(1)?

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the agreement of 3 November 1980 was not a 'lease of rights to minerals in land' within the meaning of section 3(1) of the General Law Amendment Act 50 of 1956. The Court reasoned that the technical legal meaning of 'lease of rights to minerals' refers to mineral leases as understood in common law and historical statutes, not to leases of claim licences granted under mining legislation. The omission of any reference to leases of claims in section 3(1), as opposed to earlier statutes, indicated a legislative intent to exclude such agreements from the formal requirements of notarial attestation and registration in the Deeds Office. The Court found that...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.