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
Limberg Mining Company (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy and Others (51664/2021) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1811 (13 October 2023)
The High Court dismissed a review as moot after the underlying section 11 application was granted, and ordered the applicant to pay attorney-and-client costs.
Autumn Skies Resources and Logistics (Pty) Ltd v Genet Manganese (Pty) Ltd In re: Genet Manganese (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Mineral Resources and Others (47060/2017) [2019] ZAGPPHC 559 (25 October 2019)
Automatic appeal dismissed: the court upheld immediate effect to a review order over mining rights, finding irreparable harm and exceptional circumstances.
Blackhill Engineering & Construction CC v Baolong Boora Tshidi Tribal Authority and Others (385/2009) [2012] ZANWHC 21 (31 May 2012)
The High Court held that tribal resolutions granting mining rights were invalid because they were not adopted at a proper community meeting under the governing land-rights law.
Agri South Africa v Minister of Minerals and Energy and Another (55896/07) [2011] ZAGPPHC 62; [2011] 3 All SA 296 (GNP); 2012 (1) SA 171 (GNP); 2012 (1) BCLR 16 (GNP) (28 April 2011)
The court found that the MPRDA, by its enactment, deprived Sebenza Mining (Pty) Ltd of its coal rights, legislating them out of existence and replacing them only with a limited right to apply for new rights under the Act. This deprivation constituted expropriation under section 25(2) of the Constitution, as the State acquired the substance of the rights through its custodianship and power to grant new rights. The transitional arrangements did not preserve the original rights, and Sebenza was unable to benefit from them due to its liquidation and lack of resources. The court held that compensa…
Source excerpt
Agri South Africa v Minister of Minerals and Energy; Van Rooyen v Minister of Minerals and Energy (55896/2007,10235/2008) [2009] ZAGPPHC 2; 2010 (1) SA 104 (GNP) (6 March 2009)
The court held that the coming into operation of the MPRDA extinguished unused old order mineral rights, constituting expropriation for which compensation may be claimed. The transitional arrangements in Schedule II of the Act provide a limited opportunity for holders to mitigate their loss, but do not negate the deprivation of rights. Regulation 82A(6A) specifically allows claimants to approach the court for compensation without appealing the Director-General's decision, thus the plaintiffs were not required to exhaust internal remedies before instituting action. The particulars of claim wer…
Source excerpt
De Beers Consolidated Mines Ltd v Ataqua Mining (Pty) Ltd and Others (3215/06) [2007] ZAFSHC 74 (13 December 2007)
The court held that the applicant is the owner of the tailings dumps on Subdivision 16, as the dumps are movable property severed from the land and retained for future re-treatment. The MPRDA does not apply to minerals already mined and stockpiled prior to its commencement, as the Act does not expressly regulate such tailings dumps nor expropriate ownership thereof. The decision to grant a prospecting right to the first respondent was set aside due to non-compliance with statutory requirements, including failure to notify and consult affected parties as required by the MPRDA and PAJA. The cou…
Source excerpt
Anglo Operations Ltd v Sandhurst Estates (Pty) Ltd (634/05) [2006] ZASCA 118; [2007] 2 All SA 567 (SCA); 2007 (2) SA 363 (SCA) (29 November 2006)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the holder of mineral rights is entitled, by virtue of a term implied by law, to conduct open cast mining when it is reasonably necessary to remove the minerals, provided that it is done in a manner least injurious to the interests of the surface owner. The principle of lateral or subjacent support, as a rule of neighbour law, does not automatically apply to the relationship between mineral rights holder and surface owner in South African law. The property should be considered in the context of the larger coal field, and the rights acquired include ancill…
Source excerpt
Alexkor Ltd and Another v Richtersveld Community and Others (CCT19/03) [2003] ZACC 18; 2004 (5) SA 460 (CC); 2003 (12) BCLR 1301 (CC) (14 October 2003)
The Constitutional Court held that the Richtersveld Community possessed indigenous law ownership of the subject land, including minerals and precious stones, prior to annexation and that such rights survived annexation by the British Crown. The Court found that the Community was dispossessed of its rights after 19 June 1913 as a result of racially discriminatory laws and practices, specifically the Precious Stones Act and related proclamations, which failed to recognise indigenous law ownership and treated the land as state property. The differential treatment between registered owners and in…
Source excerpt
Stadsraad van Alberton v Briti BK (138/02) [2003] ZASCA 23 (26 March 2003)
The court held that processing already extracted clay did not amount to “mining” under the Mineral Act, so the damages claim was not barred.
Richtersveld Community and Others v Alexkor Ltd and Another (488/2001) [2003] ZASCA 14; [2003] 2 All SA 27 (SCA); 2003 (6) SA 104 (SCA); 2003 (6) BCLR 583 (SCA) (24 March 2003)
The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the Richtersveld community possessed a customary law interest in the subject land, akin to ownership, which survived colonial annexation. The community's rights included exclusive beneficial occupation and use of the land and its minerals. The dispossession of these rights after 1913 was effected through a series of legislative and executive acts culminating in the transfer of land and mineral rights to Alexkor. The dispossession was the result of racially discriminatory practices, as the State failed to recognise and protect the community's rights due t…
Source excerpt
Explore more
