Witbank Bricks (1961) (Pty) Ltd v Vandu Mining CC and Another (2034/17) [2018] ZAGPPHC 897 (27 November 2018)

Witbank Bricks (1961) (Pty) Ltd v Vandu Mining CC and Another (2034/17) [2018] ZAGPPHC 897 (27 November 2018)

The applicant is the holder of a valid mining right over the properties in question, which confers exclusive rights to mine coal. The respondents have no lawful mining permit or right to mine coal on the properties, and their reliance on a right of first refusal from a third party does not confer legal authority to mine. The respondents failed to challenge the applicant's mining right through proper administrative or judicial review channels and continued mining in disregard of the applicant's rights. The requirements for a final interdict are satisfied: the applicant has a clear right, faces irreparable harm from unlawful mining, and has no alternative remedy. The respondents' defences...

Citation
[2018] ZAGPPHC 897
Parties
Applicant: Witbank Bricks (1961) (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Vandu Mining CC; Respondent: Others
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 November 2018
Case Number
2034/17
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Interdict Application After Interim Relief
Outcome
Final interdict granted in favour of the applicant; costs awarded as specified.
Judges
JH Roelofse
Legal Topics
Mining Rights, Unlawful Mining, Final Interdict, Promotion of Administrative Justice Act
Land and Property Administrative Law Mining Rights Unlawful Mining Final Interdict 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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Witbank Bricks (1961) (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Vandu Mining CC

Respondent

Others

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Interdict Application After Interim Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents are unlawfully mining coal on the applicant's mining area.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to a final interdict restraining the respondents from mining.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents have any valid right or permit to mine coal on the properties.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant is the holder of a valid mining right over the properties in question, which confers exclusive rights to mine coal. The respondents have no lawful mining permit or right to mine coal on the properties, and their reliance on a right of first refusal from a third party does not confer legal authority to mine. The respondents failed to challenge the applicant's mining right through proper administrative or judicial review channels and continued mining in disregard of the applicant's rights. The requirements for a final interdict are satisfied: the applicant has a clear right, faces irreparable harm from unlawful mining, and has no alternative remedy. The respondents' defences...

Court Disposition

Final interdict granted in favour of the applicant; costs awarded as specified.

Orders

  • The first, second and fifth respondents are interdicted and restrained from mining for coal and/or conducting any associated activities on Portions 27 and 137 of the farm Blesboklaagte 296 J.S. and on the Remaining Extent of Portion 2 of the farm Kromdraai 292 J.S.
  • The first, second and fifth respondents are ordered to pay the applicant's costs jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved.