Transvaal Gold Mining Estates Limited and Another v Emlanjeni Revolution (Pty) Ltd and Others (2025-089763) [2025] ZAMPMBHC 117 (3 December 2025)

Case Note

Transvaal Gold Mining Estates Limited and Sabie Mines (Pty) Ltd v Emlanjeni Revolution (Pty) Ltd and Thaba Chweu Local Municipality
[2025] ZAMPMB 89
03 December 2025

Reportability

This case is not reportable, as indicated by the Judge's notes. However, its significance lies in the considerations of interlocutory orders and the criteria for granting leave to appeal in South African law. The court outlined important principles regarding the finality of judgments and their appealability, delineating the distinction between substantive orders and judicial findings. It is noteworthy for practitioners dealing with appeals against interlocutory orders as it clarifies the legal thresholds that must be satisfied when a party seeks leave to appeal on the basis of judicial findings.

Cases Cited

1. Cape Empowerment Trust Ltd v Fisher Hoffman Sithole 2013 (5) SA 1 (SCA)

Legislation Cited

None directly cited in the judgment.

Rules of Court Cited

None specifically referenced in the judgment.

HEADNOTE

Summary

The case involves an application for leave to appeal against a previous order that prohibited the First Respondent from unlawfully removing or processing a mining dump. The court evaluated whether the previous order qualified for appeal based on the nature of the findings made in earlier proceedings. The central consideration was whether the findings of law presented by the First Respondent possessed a final effect sufficient to warrant an appeal, particularly in context to the substantive order issued.

Key Issues

The primary legal issues presented for determination included: - The appealability of an interlocutory order. - The significance of judicial findings in the context of appeals relating to substantive orders. - The criteria for assessing whether it is in the interests of justice to grant leave to appeal.

Held

The court held that the leave to appeal should be refused. The reasons indicated that the findings of the previous judgment did not carry final effects relevant to the substantive order, thus negating the First Respondent's argument for appeal. Furthermore, it established that an appeal should focus on substantive orders rather than merely the reasoning behind those orders.

THE FACTS

The case arose from a prior judgment rendered on 09 July 2025, in which the court issued an interlocutory order preventing the First Respondent from unlawfully removing or processing a mining dump located on Farm Waterval 168 JT. The Respondent sought leave to appeal this order, articulating ten grounds for appeal, though the argument ultimately concentrated on specific paragraphs of the prior judgment. The Applicants were noted to have established a prima facie right based on their historical mining activities on the property and possession of environmental guarantees.

THE ISSUES

The main legal questions the court needed to resolve included: - Whether the court's earlier findings constituted a still-lasting final order that could be appealed. - To what extent interlocutory orders are subject to appeal based on the potential for finality implied in judicial reasoning. - The appropriateness of granting leave based on principles of justice and legal standards.

ANALYSIS

The court meticulously analyzed the arguments presented by the Respondent regarding the nature of the judicial findings made in the previous hearing. The Respondent contended that findings included in specific paragraphs of the judgment should be considered as having a final effect, invoking the concept of appealable findings. However, the court systematically countered this assertion by affirming that it is primarily the substantive order that is subject to appeal, not the precedential reasoning.

The court referenced established legal principles from Cape Empowerment Trust Ltd v Fisher Hoffman Sithole, emphasizing that appeals are typically directed towards the substantive orders made by the court rather than its reasons. The case served as a crucial reference point to highlight that while the reasoning may be criticized, such critique does not inherently provide grounds for an appeal unless it affects the outcome of the substantive order.

Furthermore, the court pointed out that the First Respondent failed to demonstrate that the issues raised in the appeal would affect the original substantive order. This lack of substantive impact was pivotal in reaching its conclusion to deny the leave to appeal.

REMEDY

The court ordered that the application for leave to appeal be refused, thus upholding the original interlocutory order preventing the First Respondent from unlawfully acting on the mining dump.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

Key legal principles established in this judgment include: - A clear delineation between substantive orders and reasons for judgments in terms of appealability. - The recognition that not all interlocutory orders are appealable unless they possess a final characteristic relevant to the substantive matter. - The importance of demonstrating a tangible impact on the substantive order to justify an appeal, as opposed to focusing solely on judicial findings.

This analysis provides a robust understanding of the procedural and principled approach of the court in handling appeals surrounding interlocutory orders and emphasizes the balance of interests in justice that underpins such decisions.