Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Samancor Chrome Ltd v VDH Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Others (344/19) [2020] ZASCA 96 (27 August 2020)
The Supreme Court of Appeal upheld Samancor’s appeal, finding its consultation with interested and affected parties for a mining right was adequate.
Save the Maize Belt Society v Regional Mining Development And Environment Committe and Others (2014/15881) [2015] ZAGPJHC 254 (26 March 2015)
The court found that no recommendation was made by the Mining Committee on 16 April 2014 that could have prejudicial consequences for the applicant. The applicant failed to demonstrate that any substantive or procedural irregularity resulted in an adverse decision. The challenge to the applicant's legal status was dismissed as lacking merit. The record did not support grounds for recusal of the chairperson, nor did it show bias or procedural unfairness. The application was not frivolous or vexatious, and the ordinary rule regarding costs in constitutional litigation applied. The application f…
Source excerpt
Pilanesberg Platinum Mines (Pty) Ltd v Chief Director: Mineral Regulations, Department of Mineral Resources and Others (61752/2013) [2014] ZAGPPHC 590 (29 July 2014)
The court found that the First Respondent acted ultra vires by imposing conditions requiring financial provision for rehabilitation based on the original EMP after approving amendments to the closure objectives. The conditions were not rationally connected to the information before the First Respondent, nor to the reasons given, and failed to consider relevant expert evidence supporting the feasibility of the amended closure objectives. The First Respondent's reliance on a worst-case scenario was unsupported and unreasonable. The statutory framework requires financial provision to be made in…
Source excerpt
Mtunzini Conservancy v Tronox KZN Sands (Pty) Ltd and Another (10629/2012) [2013] ZAKZDHC 1; 2013 (4) BCLR 467 (KZD); [2013] 2 All SA 69 (KZD) (8 January 2013)
The Court held that when the first respondent commenced mining activities in 2002, only authorisation under the Minerals Act was required, and provincial planning approval under the Town Planning Ordinance was not necessary. The Minerals Act provided a comprehensive regulatory framework for mining, including environmental and land use controls, and provincial ordinances could not override national mining legislation. The 2008 amendment to the Town Planning Ordinance and the subsequent KwaZulu-Natal Planning and Development Act introduced planning approval requirements for mining, but these we…
Source excerpt
ans Cuici Agri (Edms) Beperk and Another v Saamwerk Soutwerke (Edms) Beperk (540/07) [2007] ZANCHC 62 (16 November 2007)
The court set aside an order granting a mining right after finding affected parties were not joined and material facts were withheld from the original application.
Maccsand CC v Macassar Land Claims Committee and Another (LCC 37/03) [2007] ZALCC 19 (14 August 2007)
The Court held that the Commission on the Restitution of Land Rights qualifies as 'the State' for purposes of intervention under section 29(2) of the Restitution Act, given its public function in land reform. The Land Claims Court has jurisdiction to vary the Supreme Court of Appeal's order, as the original order specifically provided for such variation upon completion of mining and rehabilitation of Strips B and C. The legal dispensation for mineral rights has changed since the original order, with mineral rights now vested in the State and divorced from land ownership. The requirements for…
Source excerpt
Maccsand CC v Macassar Land Claims Committee and Others (594/2003) [2004] ZASCA 114; [2005] 2 All SA 469 (SCA) (30 November 2004)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the interim interdict granted by the Land Claims Court was appealable because it had immediate and final effect on Maccsand's mining rights, which could be lost due to delays in the restitution claim. The requirements for an interim interdict were not fully satisfied, particularly regarding the balance of convenience, as the financial prejudice to Maccsand was severe and the prospects of the restitution claim being resolved soon were uncertain. The costs order at the interlocutory stage was inappropriate and should have been reserved. The contempt finding…
Source excerpt
Explore more
