South Africa Case Law

Tau Mining Contractors (Pty) Ltd v Aveng Moolmans (Pty) Ltd and Another (2671/2024)

Tau Mining Contractors (Pty) Ltd v Aveng Moolmans (Pty) Ltd and Another (2671/2024) [2024] ZANCHC 103 (1 November 2024)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

2671/2024

Judge

Lever

The court found that the applicant had established both the physical and mental elements of possession required for a mandament van spolie, as possession was implied by the nature of the mining contract and the statutory obligations imposed on the applicant. The area claimed was sufficiently delineated by annexure FA4, and both respondents were aware of its boundaries. The applicant was unlawfully deprived of possession and did not voluntarily part with it. Although urgency was not properly established and the abridged timeframes were oppressive, the court exercised its discretion to entertai…

Source excerpt

• Mandament Van Spolie
• Urgent Interdict
• Mining Contracts
• Possessory Rights

Wiid and Another v Wxplomin No 1 (EDMS) Bpk and Another (1175/03)

Wiid and Another v Wxplomin No 1 (EDMS) Bpk and Another (1175/03) [2004] ZANCHC 4 (1 January 2004)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

1175/03

Judge

Lacock R

The court found that Explomin had materially breached the mining contract by failing to provide the required rehabilitation guarantee and by not rehabilitating the land on an ongoing basis as required by clause 9. The notice of 10 October 2003, although specifying 7 days, was valid and afforded Explomin the full 15 days stipulated in the contract to remedy the breaches. Explomin failed to remedy the breaches within this period. The Trust did not waive its right to cancel the contract, and cancellation was properly communicated after the expiry of the remedy period. The applicants were entitle…

Source excerpt

• Mining Contracts
• Contract Cancellation
• Rehabilitation Obligations
• Security For Performance
• Urgent Interdict
• Costs Award

Grand Mines (Pty) Ltd v Giddey NO (183/97)

Grand Mines (Pty) Ltd v Giddey NO (183/97) [1998] ZASCA 99; 1999 (1) SA 960 (SCA); (23 November 1998)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

183/97

Judges

Smalberger, Nienaber, Howie, Schutz, Ngoepe

The court held that payment for coal under the mining contract was not reciprocal to rehabilitation, so the exceptio non adimpleti contractus failed.

• Exceptio Non Adimpleti Contractus
• Mining Contracts
• Rehabilitation Obligations
• Reciprocal Performance
• Tacit Terms
• Exceptio-non-adimpleti-contractus