|
|
— —
| VBI.
| MN SS. 2-7 ey]
NEG 7 ae
OP SGU
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, MPUMALANGA DIVISION,
(MBOMBELA MAIN SEAT)
Case No.: 3985/2023
DELETE WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED YES/NO aa
05 MAY 2025 FOURIE AJ
DATE SIGNATURE
In the application between:
MPILO AND ZEN HOLDINGS (PTY) LTD APPLICANT
AND |
THE MINISTER OF MINERAL RESOURCES FIRST RESPONDENT
AND ENERGY
MR SAMSON GWEDE MANTASHE
THE REGIONAL MANAGER OF THE FIRST SECOND RESPONDENT i
MR AUBREY TSHIVHANDEKANO
THE MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE, LAND THIRD RESPONDENT
REFORM AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
MRS ANGELA THOKOZILE DIDIZA
THE CHIEF DIRECTOR OF THE FOURTH RESPONDENT
THIRD RESPONDENT :
MS ZS SIHLANGU
CENTURION MINING COMPANY (PTY) LTD FIFTH RESPONDENT
| JUDGMENT
FOURIE AJ
INTRODUCTION:
{1] The Applicant in the current application makes an application under the auspices
of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, 3 of 2000 (hereinafter “PAJA”) to
review and set aside certain decisions made by the First, Second, Third, and
Fourth Respondents. |
[2] The Applicant (hereinafter “Mpilo”) further makes an application seeking to be
given access to a specific property for purposes of mining thereon and seeks a :
declaratory order in respect of the validity, alternatively, the extension of a mining
permit issued in favour of the Applicant on 25 January 2023.
[3] The First, Second, Third, and Fourth Respondents have all filed notices to abide
by this Court’s decision.
[4] The only party opposing the application is the Fifth Respondent (hereinafter
“Centurion”), who seeks the application to be dismissed with costs.
[5] In his judgment dated 26 July 2023, which concerned an urgent interdict that was
sought by the same Applicant against the same Respondents, Roelofse AJ
stated that:
“The facts of this matter are un-complicated — the Law is not.”
2
[6] 1 wish to expand upon the aforesaid statement largely because the Court, in
| evaluating the current application, was unfortunately not kept within the confines
of a review application. It is notable that Advocate Alli, appearing for the
Applicant, as well as Advocate Wesley SC, appearing together with his junior
Advocate Basson, are extremely knowledgeable on mining rights and the
applicable principles pertaining thereto.
[7] Although the underlying dispute between the respective parties might concern
mining rights, the relief this Court is requested to pronounce upon is vested in
administrative law and not mining law.
[8] in the current matter, the Court accordingly cautioned itself throughout not to
attempt to usurp the functions of administrative agencies, all of the First, Second,
Third and Fourth Respondents have important duties to fulfil and no doubt they
all have the required knowledge and expertise to fulfil such duties with the
necessary diligence required. The role of this Court is never to attempt to step
into the shoes of any of the First, Second, Third and Fourth Respondents and to
make expert decisions on their behalf, same would not be appropriate, and it can
never be expected of any Court to have this level of expertise. If either Applicants
or Respondents wish for the Courts to fulfil this role, they are mistaken.
[9] The only task of this Court is to ensure that the decisions taken by administrative H
agencies fall within the balance of reasonableness as required by the
Constitution.
[10] In the matter of BATO STAR FISHING (PTY) LTD v MINISTER OF
ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS AND OTHERS [1] the Constitutional Court
emphasised that a Court should be careful not to attribute to itself superior
wisdom in relation to matters entrusted to other branches of Government and
that a Court should take care not to assert functions of administrative agencies.
3