South Africa Case Law

Anderson v Cyprus Properties (Pty) Limited and Others (87846/15)

Anderson v Cyprus Properties (Pty) Limited and Others (87846/15) [2017] ZAGPPHC 490 (4 August 2017)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

87846/15

Judge

TJ Raulinga

The applicant, as successor in title, is entitled to enforce the lease and evict the first and second respondents due to the non-fulfilment of the suspensive condition regarding the water usage licence within a reasonable time and material breaches of environmental obligations. The doctrine of huur gaat voor koop applies, binding the applicant and respondents to the lease terms. The water usage licence was not obtained by the first respondent as required, and the delay was unreasonable. The first respondent's refusal to rehabilitate the land constitutes repudiation. The arbitration clause doe…

Source excerpt

• Lease Suspensive Conditions
• Huur Gaat Voor Koop
• Environmental Authorisation
• Rehabilitation Of Land
• Arbitration Clause
• Breach Of Contract

Four Arrows 68 Investments (Pty) Ltd v Royale Energy Limited (64068/2013)

Four Arrows 68 Investments (Pty) Ltd v Royale Energy Limited (64068/2013) [2014] ZAGPPHC 982 (5 December 2014)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

64068/2013

Judge

TLHAPI V.V

The High Court referred a lease dispute to oral evidence after finding material factual disputes about the lease term, tacit renewal, and eviction relief.

• Lease Agreement
• Tacit Contract
• Eviction
• Oral Evidence
• Rehabilitation Of Land
• Lease-agreement

Director: Mineral Development, Gauteng Region and Another v Save the Vaal Environment and Others (133/98)

Director: Mineral Development, Gauteng Region and Another v Save the Vaal Environment and Others (133/98) [1999] ZASCA 9; [1999] 2 All SA 381 (A) (12 March 1999)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

133/98

Judges

Mahomed, Howie, Marais, Olivier, Madlanga

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the audi alteram partem rule applies to the Director's decision to grant a mining licence under section 9 of the Minerals Act. The court found that section 9 requires consideration of environmental rehabilitation, which directly affects the rights and interests of affected parties. The mere granting of a mining licence sets in motion a chain of events that may lead to environmental harm, and thus interested parties must be afforded an opportunity to be heard at the licence application stage. The Act does not expressly or by necessary implication exclude t…

Source excerpt

• Audi Alteram Partem
• Mining Authorisation
• Environmental Rights
• Rehabilitation Of Land
• Legitimate Expectation