About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
>>
2014
>>
[2014] ZAFSHC 50
|
|
Bosaletse N.O. and Others v Minister of Mineral Resources and Others (1891/2013) [2014] ZAFSHC 50 (15 April 2014)
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA FREE STATE DIVISION. BLOEMFONTEIN
Case
No. : 1891/2013
In
the matter between
REALEBOGA
BOSALETSE N.O
…………………………………........................
First
Applicant
LUCY
AMMON N.O
…
…………………………………………..........................
Second
Applicant
PUMZILE
F. NGXITO N.O
……………………………………….....................…
Third
Applicant
MASEHLEPHO
E. MQHAJANE N.O
…………………………...........................
Fourth
Applicant
TSIETSIE
JOSEPH TAU N.O
……………………………………..........................
Fifth
Applicant
DITABA
L. SEBONYANE N.O
…………………………………........................…
Sixth
Applicant
AADIL
MATHER N.O
………………………………………….........................
Seventh
Applicant
PATRICK
A. MABILO N.O
………………………………………......................
Eighth
Applicant
ESIAS
JEREMIA GERBER N.O
…………………………………......................
Ninth
Applicant
YUSUF
KERBELKER N.O
……………………………………….........................
Tenth
Applicant
FLOYD
TEU N.O
……………………………………….……….......................
Eleventh
Applicant
WHEATFIELDS
INVESTMENTS
NO.
168 (PTY)
LTD
…………………………………….....................................
Twelfth
Applicant
and
THE
MINISTER OF MINERAL RESOURCES
…………….......................…
First
Respondent
DIRECTOR-GENERAL,
DEPARTMENT
OF
MINERAL RESOURCES
………………………………........................
Second
Respondent
ACTING
REGIONAL MANAGER MINERAL
RESOURCES,
FREE STATE REGION
……………………..........................
Third
Respondent
DE
BEERS CONSOLIDATED MINES LTD
……………........................…..
Fourth
Respondent
PONAHALO
HOLDINGS (PTY) LTD
………………………......................…
Fifth
Respondent
REINET
FUND SCA FIS
………………………………………........................
Sixth
Respondent
JAGERSFONTEIN
DEVELOPMENTS
(PTY)
LTD
………………………………………………............................
Seventh
Respondent
MARIUS
DE VILLIERS N.O
…
………………………..................……….
Eighth
Respondent
HENK
JOHAN VAN ZUYDAM N.O
………………………...................…..
Ninth
Respondent
SIPHO
PUWANI N.O
……………………………………….......................….
Tenth
Respondent
GONTHUSANG
EUGINE GOLIATH N.O
……………......................….
Eleventh
Respondent
EZEKIEL
ZAKHELE DUNJANE N.O
…………………......................…..
Twelfth
Respondent
KOPANONG
LOCAL MUNICIPALITY
………………....................…
Thirteenth
Respondent
CORAM:
MOCUMIE J, et MOLEMELA J, et JORDAAN J,
DELIVERED
ON:
15 APRIL 2014
LEAVE
TO APPEAL
MOCUMIE.
J
[1]
This is an application for leave to
appeal against the whole of the judgment and order by the applicants
to the Supreme Court of
Appeal. The grounds for the application are
numerous as set out in the notice of application for leave to appeal
and need not be
repeated. The application is opposed by all the
respondents except the first to the third respondents who abide the
decision of
the court. I am indebted to all counsel for the detailed
heads of arguments which were helpful.
[2]
I have had the benefit of revisiting the
judgment under attack and deem it unnecessary to traverse it
paragraph by paragraph or
to consider each ground of appeal
separately suffice to say the following.
[3]
The
proper approach to determining whether a judgment or order is
appealable to the Supreme Court of Appeal is well settled.
[1]
For a judgment or order to be appealable to the Supreme court of
Appeal the judgment or order must be final in effect; not be
susceptible of alteration by the court of first instance; and
definitive of the rights of the parties.
[4]
The order of this court is expressly
confined to the interim relief under Part A of the notice of motion
as sought by the applicants.
The applicants have not and could not
contend that the relief sought and granted was final in form or in
effect. The applicants
albeit open to them to argue that,
notwithstanding the interim nature of the relief which they sought at
the hearing, the dismissal
of this application for interim relief was
in effect final and definitive of the rights of the parties, had
failed to make out
such a case in their notice of application for
leave to appeal or in their detailed heads of argument. A judgment
and order of
this nature is not appealable. The application falls to
be dismissed on this basis alone.
[5]
As a result the question whether there
are reasonable prospects that another court may reach a different
conclusion hardly comes
into play.
[6]
In the result, the following order is
granted.
ORDER
Leave
to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal is dismissed with costs.
B.C.
MOCUMIE, J
I
concur,
MOLEMELA,
J
I
concur,
JORDAAN, J
On
behalf of applicants: Adv Ellis
Instructed
by:
Peyper
Sesele Attorneys Inc.
BLOEMFONTEIN
On
behalf of respondents: Adv Loxton and Van der Nest
Instructed
by:
Vosloo
Attorneys
BLOEMFONTEIN
[1]
Zweni v Minister of Law and Order
1993 (1) SA 523
(A);Govemment of
South Africa and Others v Von Abo
2011 (5) SA 262
(SCA)