South Africa Case Law

Northern Coal v Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy and Others (2024-061972)

Northern Coal v Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy and Others (2024-061972) [2024] ZAGPPHC 750 (24 July 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2024-061972

Judge

de Vos

The court found that section 102 of the MPRDA does not require a valid prospecting right over the area to be added to an existing mining right. Northern Coal's section 102 application was first in time and should take precedence over Jaments' subsequent application. The Minister's suspension decision was based on irrelevant considerations and failed to consider the real and imminent harm to Northern Coal, including financial, employment, and environmental consequences. The principle of first-in-time, first-in-right applies to section 102 consent applications, and the Minister erred in law by…

Source excerpt

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Mining Rights Variation
• First In Time Principle
• Judicial Substitution Of Administrative Decision
• Commercial Urgency
• Environmental Authorisation

Jomahil Crushing Merchants (Pty) Ltd v Mopani Crushers (Pty) Ltd (32408/21)

Jomahil Crushing Merchants (Pty) Ltd v Mopani Crushers (Pty) Ltd (32408/21) [2021] ZAGPPHC 464 (16 July 2021)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

32408/21

Judge

E van der Schyff

The High Court granted urgent relief allowing the applicant to remove leased crushing equipment, finding the lease cancelled and rejecting the respondent’s retention claim.

• Lease Agreement Termination
• Right Of Retention
• Urgent Interdict
• Commercial Urgency
• Urgent-application
• Lease-agreement-termination

10 & 10a Kenmere CC v Ndebele and Others (2018/31110)

10 & 10a Kenmere CC v Ndebele and Others (2018/31110) [2019] ZAGPJHC 199 (19 June 2019)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2018/31110

Judge

L.T. Modiba

The applicant is the lawful owner of the property, as evidenced by the deed of transfer and CIPC certificate. The respondents are unlawful occupiers under the PIE Act, having failed to pay rent and refusing to vacate after notice. The application is commercially urgent due to the applicant's financial losses and risk of foreclosure. The applicant complied with section 4(2) of the PIE Act by serving notice on the respondents and the municipality, which elected not to participate. The respondents' technical objections and counter-application lack merit and are dismissed. The eviction order is j…

Source excerpt

• Prevention Of Illegal Eviction Act
• Urgent Eviction
• Joinder Of Parties
• Municipal Notification
• Commercial Urgency
• Costs Order