South Africa Case Law

Monageng Family Mining Services (Pty) Ltd v Ramokoka and Others (UM76/2019)

Monageng Family Mining Services (Pty) Ltd v Ramokoka and Others (UM76/2019) [2020] ZANWHC 21 (27 February 2020)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

UM76/2019

Judge

R D Hendricks

The court found that the applicant's mining permits (29/2010, 30/2010, and 31/2010) had expired by effluxion of time and that any purported renewals were invalid. The granting of three adjacent permits to cover a total area of 4.5 hectares was a circumvention of the statutory limit of 1.5 hectares under the applicable law. The applicant therefore lacked a clear right to the mining operations and was not entitled to interdictory relief. The counter-applications by the 15th and 24th respondents succeeded, with the permits declared unlawful and set aside. The counter-application by the 27th to 3…

Source excerpt

• Mining Permits
• Prospecting Rights
• Interdictory Relief
• Permit Renewal
• Judicial Overreach
• Locus Standi

Ormin Coal (Pty) Ltd v Niemcor Africa (Pty) Ltd and Others (762/2017)

Ormin Coal (Pty) Ltd v Niemcor Africa (Pty) Ltd and Others (762/2017) [2017] ZALMPPHC 4 (17 February 2017)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

762/2017

Judge

N F Kgomo

Urgent interdict proceedings failed after the court found no valid mining authority, a defective founding affidavit, and no basis for possession of Dump 5.

• Mining Permits
• Spoliation
• Urgent Interdict
• Jurisdiction
• Commissioning Of Affidavits
• Liquidation And Possession

Bright Bay Property Service (Pty) Ltd v Moravian Church in South Africa (3130/12)

Bright Bay Property Service (Pty) Ltd v Moravian Church in South Africa (3130/12) [2012] ZAWCHC 178; 2013 (3) SA 78 (WCC) (31 October 2012)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

3130/12

Judge

Henney

The court held that under the Companies Act 71 of 2008, reinstatement of a deregistered company does not retrospectively validate acts performed during the period of deregistration. The applicant, having been deregistered, lacked corporate personality and could not lawfully demand specific performance or institute proceedings. Any mining permit issued to the applicant during deregistration was void, as the applicant was a non-existent entity. The agreement between the parties was no longer in operation, and the applicant had no clear right to the relief sought. The respondent was not obliged…

Source excerpt

• Company Deregistration
• Mining Permits
• Specific Performance
• Corporate Personality
• Contractual Resolutive Conditions

Louisvale Irrigation Board v Minister of Minerals and Energy and Others (2090/2010)

Louisvale Irrigation Board v Minister of Minerals and Energy and Others (2090/2010) [2011] ZANCHC 40 (19 December 2011)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

2090/2010

Judges

Kgomo, Pakati

The court found that the statutory requirements under section 27(5)(b) of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act were not met, as Kolskoot Beleggings 116 CC, the lawful occupier, was neither notified nor consulted prior to the granting of mining permits to the fourth, fifth, and sixth respondents. The letters sent to the landowner did not constitute adequate consultation, lacking necessary detail and failing to invite negotiation or address the interests of the lawful occupier. The department and permit applicants had multiple opportunities to comply with the statutory prescripts…

Source excerpt

• Mining Permits
• Consultation Requirements
• Procedural Fairness
• Lawful Occupier Rights
• Review Of Administrative Action