REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
Case Number: 36955/202
In the matter between:
SEFATENG CHROME MINE (PTY) LTD
and
MINISTER OF MINERAL RESOURCES AND ENERGY
DIRECTOR-GENERAL: DEPARTMENT OF
MINERAL RESOURCES AND ENERGY APPLICANT
181 RESPONDENT
2ND RESPONDENT
DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: DEPARTMENT OF
MINERAL RESOURCES AND ENERGY
REGIONAL MANAGER, LIMPOPO REGION:
DEPARTMENT OF MINERAL RESOURCES
AND ENERGY
LETHABO EXPLORATION (PTY) LTD
JUDGMENT
Van Aswegen AJ
INTRODUCTION: 3RD RESPONDENT
4TH RESPONDENT
5TH RESPONDENT
[1] This is a review application on grounds as set out in the Promotion of
Administrative Justice Act, 3 of 2000 ("PAJA").
[2] The Applicant seeks the following relief:1
l 0002-1 [2.1] That the First Respondent's decision to refuse the Applicant's
administrative appeal (with Departmental Reference 9/2/4/3/796) on
12 January 2022, is reviewed and set aside.
(2.2] That the decision of the Second Respondent dated 28 June 2017 to
grant a mining right (LP 30/5/1/2/2/10073 MR) for andalusite and
magnesite , excluding chrome ore, in terms of section 23 of the Mineral
and Petroleum Resources Development Act 28 of 2002 ("MPRDA"), in
2
respect of farm Waterkop 113 KT in the Limpopo Province, to the Fifth
Respondent ("the Mining Right'), is reviewed and set aside.
[2.3] That the aforesaid decisions are replaced and substituted with the
following decision by the Second Respondent to refuse the Fifth
Respondent's application for a Mining Right: The Fifth Respondent's
application for a Mining Right [LP 30/5/1/2/2/10073 MR} is refused;
[2.41 to the extent that it may be necessary, any delay in the launch of this
application is condoned in terms of s 9( 1) of the Promotion of
Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000.
(2.5] the First, Second and Fifth Respondents jointly and severally to pay
the costs of this application.
FACTUAL MATRIX:
[3] On 24 May 2013 the Applicant ("Sefateng") was a prospecting right holder in
respect of the Farm Waterkop 113. Since 12 September 2014 Sefateng
however held a Mining Right, with departmental reference
LP 30/5/2/2/1/10062 MR.
(3.1) This right pertains to Chrome ore on the Farm Waterkop 113,
granted under section 23 of the MPRDA until 2044.
(3.2] The applicant's prospecting right was initially held by Corridor
Mining Resources (Pfy) Ltd.
(3.2.1]
2 FA2.3 at 0002·91 The first respondent denied ministerial consent for the
cession of this right to Sefateng on 10 and 17 May 2022.
Sefateng sought a review, and the court overturned
these decisions, granting consent under section 11 of
the MPRDA.2
3
[3.3) Sefateng is a lawful occupier of the Land under section 5(3) of the
MPRDA, due to its registered Mining Right on the Land.
[4] Sefateng, as the holder of a Mining Right under section 23 of the MPRDA,
therefore has the right to mine and recover minerals (in this case, Chrome
ore) on the Farm Waterkop 113. This right includes those outlined in section
5 of the MPRDA and additional rights conferred by its Mining Right terms and
conditions, namely:
[4.1) The right to mine for chrome ore on or under that land for its own
benefit and accounting;3 and
(4.2) the right to extract and dispose of any discovered mineral during
mining operations .4
[5] The Sefateng Mining Right5 explicitly states that Sefateng has been granted
the exclusive right to mine and extract the minerals (Chrome ore) within the
designated mining area for its own benefit and account.
[6] Subsequent thereto the first respondent promulgated a moratorium pursuant
to section 49 of the MPRDA by Notice 367 of Government Gazette 34690 of
24 May 2013. The restriction issued stated the following:
"The Minister hereby impose a restriction under section 49(1) for a period not
exceeding 10 years from the publication hereof on the granting of new
reconnaissance permission, prospecting rights, mining rights, production
right, exploration right and mining permits in respect of Unsurveyed State
land known as Klein Letaba, the farms A/ten 221 LT, Plange 222 LT,
Zwartkoppies 413 KT Waterkop 113 KT. Molendraai 811 LR, Commandodrift
228 LR, Gezond 235 KR, lnhambane 802 LR, Twyfelaar 119 KT, Mineral
Area No. 3 and 4 of the farm Maandagshoek 254 KT, Mineral Area No. 5 on
3 Section 5(3)(b) of the MPRD
4 Section 5(3)(c) of the MPRD
5 Clause 2 of FAS at 0002-107
4
Portion of the farm Mandaagshoek 254 KT and Portion of Portion 1 of the
farm Mooihoek 255 KT.
This restriction will not affect those entities' rights to exercise their respective
exclusive rights in terms of section 19(1)(b) of the Act. or the renewal of any
rights in terms of the Act." (my underlining)
[7] On 20 November 2014, the fifth respondent ("Lethabo ") informed Corridor
Mining Resources (Pty) Ltd, the former prospecting right holder about its
mining right application . 6
[8] Upon being notified of the application by Corridor Mining Resources (Pty)
Ltd, Sefateng filed an objection pursuant to section 10 of the MPRDA against
the issuance of the Lethabo mining right.7
[9] On 26 June 2017, Lethabo received a Mining Right for Andalusite and
Magnesite at Farm Waterkop113 KT; PGM, Iron, Titanium, Andalusite,
Vanadium , and Magnesite at Portions 2, 3, and 4 of Farm Mecklenburg 112
KT; and Iron, Titanium, Chrome, and Andalusite at Farm Malekskraal 509 KS,
Limpopo Province.
[9.1] The aforementioned mining right encroached upon the Land, Farm
Waterkop 113, which was already encompassed by Sefateng's
existing Mining Right where Sefateng operates its chrome mine;
[9.1.1] Sefateng is the lawful occupier of Farm Waterkop 113, as
well as an interested and affected party under section 5(3)
of the MPRDA.
(9.2] The mining right was granted without consulting Sefateng, who had
an ongoing chrome mining operation on the specified land.
6 FA4.1 at 0002-98
7 FA4.2 at 0002-99
5
[10] The issues in paragraphs 9.1 and 9.2 were addressed in an internal
administrative appeal, which was lodged on 15 December 2017 .8
[11] Sefateng argued that the second respondent wrongly granted the Mining
Right to Lethabo without considering the absence of a consultation record
required by section 22(4) of the MPRDA.
[11.1] Section 22(4) reads as follows:
"4) If the Regional Manager accepts the application, the
Regional Manager must, within 14 days from the date of
acceptance, notify the applicant in writing-
(a) to conduct an environmental impact assessment and
submit an environmental management programme for
approval in terms of section 39, and
(b) to notify and consult with interested and affected parties
within 180 days from the date of the notice." (my
underlining)
[11.2] Therefore, section 23(1 )(g) read with subsection (3) of the MPRDA
prohibited the grant.
8 FA7 at 0002-134 "Granting and duration of mining right
23. (1) Subject to subsection (4), the Minister must grant a wining
right if-
(g) the applicant is not in contravention of any provision
of this Act: and ... "
3) The Minister must refuse to grant a mining right if the
application does not meet all the requirements referred to
in subsection (1 ). "(my underlining)
6
(12] On 27 August 2020, as part of the internal appeal process, the DMRE
provided the fourth respondent's reasons for the decision.9 The reasons
were the following:
(12.1] Sefateng and Lethabo 'co-existed' on the Land whilst Lethabo still
held a prospecting right;
[12.2] An interested and affected party is determined by "whoever, held
a valid right (prospecting/mining right and permits) at the time
Lethabo lodged the mining right application, is an interested and
affected party."
[12.3) Sefateng held no right save for the right to apply for and be
granted a mining right and that it follows therefore, that Lethabo
was not obligated to consult Sefateng.
[12.4) Sefateng held no right save for the right to apply for and be
granted a mining right and it follows therefore, that Lethabo was
not obligated to consult Sefateng.
[12.5] The objection referred to by Sefateng at paragraph 4.4.4 of the
appeal was lodged outside the prescribed timeframes within
which an objection in terms of section 1 O of the Act maybe
evaluated
[12.6] The objection included grounds detailed in the initial appeal
against the acceptance of the disputed mining right application .
The second respondent reviewed and addressed these grounds
during the first appeal. As the second respondent had already
made a decision on this matter, the same grounds cannot be
reconsidered in the second appeal.
9 FA9 at 0002-180
7
(13] On 28 September 2020 Sefateng filed its response to the aforesaid reasons,
as provided for in Regulation 74(8).10
(14] Sefateng submitted in essence that it was an interested and affected party
at all relevant times to the Lethabo mining right application and Lethabo was
obligated to consult it. In the absence of any proof of any engagement to
consult as required by section 22(4)(b) of the MPRDA, it cannot be regarded
as compliance and accordingly, the Mining Right could not be granted, as
provided for in section 23(1 )(g) read with subsection (3) of the MPRDA.
(15] Concerning the section 1 O objection, Sefateng stated that the Regional
Manager erred in this regard in that the mining right was granted by the
second respondent and that the appeal had to be considered by the first
respondent. The first respondent could indeed be called upon to consider the
same grounds in the appeal.
(16] The existence of the section 1 O objection dated 11 Decembe r 2014 is
common cause. In terms of section 10(2) of the MPRDA, the Regional
Manager was compelled to refer the objection to the Regional Mining
Development and Environmental Committee (''RMDEC") for consideration,
which was to advise the first respondent thereon.11
(17] On 12 January 2022, the first respondent notified Sefateng that its internal
administrative appeal had essentially been denied.12
(18] The DMRE Minister's (the first respondent) grounds for the denial were as
follows:13
[18.1] that Lethabo, as a purported holder of a prospecting right, was
exercising its exclusive right to apply for a Mining Right;
1° FAlO AT 0002-180
11 Annexure B to FA4.2 at 0002-99
12 FA12 at 0002-201
13 FA9 at 0002-180
8
[18.2] that Lethabo applied for Andalusite and Magnesite, which are not
included in Sefateng's Mining Right.
[18.3] that Lethabo was not legally obligated to consult with Sefateng.
(19] Sefateng asserts that both respondents were mistaken in concluding that
consultation with Sefateng was unnecessary .
(20] Section 22(4)(b) of the MPRDA requires applicants seeking a Mining Right
to consult with landowners, lawful occupiers (such as Sefateng), and any
affected parties following the acceptance of their application, and to include
the results of such consultations in environmental reports.
(21] Section 23(1 )(g) of the MPRDA makes compliance with its provisions a
prerequisite for the granting of a Mining Right. The Minister (or his delegate)
is authorized to grant a Mining Right only if, among other conditions,
"the applicant is not violating any provision".
(22] Sefateng argues that the decision that consultation was not required and the
failure to consult as required by the MPRDA, renders the decision by the first
and second respondent , to grant a Mining Right to Lethabo, over the same
Land, unlawful and liable to be set aside on review.
(23) Additionally it is contended that the minerals Andalusite and Magnesite are
not present on the Farm Waterkop 113. The Lethabo Mining Right was
furthermore granted during a moratorium which imposed a 10-year restriction
on the issuance of any Mining Rights over, among other areas, the Farm
Waterkop 113. This occurred under conditions where Lethabo did not
possess a valid Prospecting Right at that time.
PLEADINGS AND HEARING OF REVIEW:
(24] On 11 July 2022, Sefateng initiated the review proceedings .14
14 0002-1
9
[25] The application was formally served on the First Respondent on 15 July 2022
at the principal place of business of the state attorney. 15
[26) The second and third respondents were served on 21 July 2022, at their
principal place of business by handing the application to Ms. Given
Makhubela.16
[27] Service was affected on the 4th Respondent on 15 July 2022 at its principal
place of business by handing the application to Mr. Abram Seimela.17
[28] Lethabo was served on 14 July 2022 at its registered address.
The application was received by Mr. Josias Nyamusa, who is the director's
domestic help.18 On 18 October 2022, at the principal place of business of
Lethabo, the application was served on Mr. Daniel Mabona, a clerk.19
(29) None of the decision-makers within the Department of Mineral Resources
and Energy (DMRE) oppose this application. (1st to 4th Respondents)
[30] Lethabo served a Notice of Intention to Oppose dated 1 O May 202320 and
delivered an answering affidavit.21
(31] Sefateng subsequently delivered a replying affidavit. 22
(32] The matter was scheduled for hearing on the opposed motion court roll for
19 May 2025.23 The setdown was send to the attorneys of Lethabo (the
5th Respondent) via electronic mail on 27 November 2024.24
15 0027-1 and 0027-2
160027-2
17 0027-4
18 0027-5
19 0027-6
200004-1
210002-216
22 0002-255
23 0017-7
24 0017-6
10
[33) On 21 May 2025, I was informed that Lethabo's lawyers, Dixon Attorneys,
had filed and uploaded on Case-lines a notice of withdrawal as attorneys of
record.25 The said notice is dated 19 May 2025.
[34) I proceeded to hear the matter as the 5th Respondent must have been
informed of the hearing date by its attorneys as the notice of setdown
preceded the notice of withdrawal.
(35) I granted Sefateng leave to submit an additional affidavit to present a copy
of the Lethabo Mining Right26 before the Court. This document was neither
included in the Record nor provided by Lethabo in its answering affidavit,
thus no prejudice results from this submission.
[36) Although not present in court I will at the outset address Lethabo's
opposition to this application.
POINTS IN LIMINE:
(37) Lethabo raised two in limine points, namely:
25 0004-4 [37.1) The authority of Mr. Gerard Jacobus Blaauw's to represent
Sefateng in the proceedings and to verify the initial documents.27
[37.2) That the review is purportedly out of time. It contends that the
review application is untimely on the grounds that Sefateng
allegedly became aware of Lethabo's Mining Right earlier than
Sefateng has claimed.28
26 Annexure MR 1 at 0002-349
27 0002-220
28 0002-218
11
EVALUATION OF THESE POINTS:
LACK OF AUTHORITY:
(38] Lethabo pleaded that the Applicant's deponent is not authorised by the
Directors of the company and the Companies Act to have deposed to the
founding affidavit, and that the application is therefore fatally flawed. 29
[39] The resolution also did not meet the requirements of section 74(1) of the
Companies Act as it was signed by only one director.
(39.1] "Directors acting other than at meeting
74. (1) Except to the extent that the Memorandum of
Incorporation of a company provides otherwise , a
decision that could be voted on at a meeting of the
board of that company may instead be adopted by
written consent of a majority of the directors, given in
person, or by electronic communication , provided that
each director has received notice of the matter to be
decided.
(2) A decision made in the manner contemplated in this
section is of the same effect as if it had been approved
by voting at a meeting."
(40) This point lacks merit in that there was a resolution passed and signed by
the majority of Sefateng's directors. 30
(41) Sefateng accordingly had:
29 0002-220 [41.1] the authority to institute these proceedings and
(41.2) Mr. Gerard Jacobus Blaauw was authorised to depose to the
founding and any other affidavits and to sign any and all
documentation pertaining to the aforementioned litigation and in
30 Annexure RA2 at 0002-289
12
general, to do all the necessary required in this regard in
execution of his mandate to ensure the institution of such
application and obtaining the relief sought.
[42] The Supreme Court of Appeal furthermore held that a party that is a
deponent to an affidavit in motion proceedings need not be authorised by the
party concerned to depose to the affidavit. It is merely the institution of legal
proceedings and the prosecution thereof which must be authorised31
(43] The Applicant did authorize the institution of these proceedings by means of
the aforesaid resolution . The point in limine must accordingly fail.
LATENESS OF REVIEW APPL/CATION
[44] Lethabo claims that Sefateng failed to comply with the provisions of the
Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000 ("the Act") by not lodging
the Review application from the time it allegedly became aware of the Mining
Right granted to Lethabo. 32
[45] Section 7(1 )(a) read with section 7(2)(a) of PAJA provides that judicial review
must be instituted within 180 days after the date on which any proceedings
instituted in terms of internal remedies "have been concluded''.
[46] Section 7(1) of the PAJA provides as follows:
"(1) Any proceedings for judicial review in terms of section 6(1) must be
instituted without unreasonable delay and not later than 180 days after
the date-
31 Ganes v Telecom Namibia Ltd 2004 (3) SA 615 (SCA) and PM v MM 2022 (3) SA 403 (SCA)
32 Paragraphs 4.1-4.7 of AA at. 0002-218
13
(a) subject to subsection (2)(c), on which any proceedings instituted in
terms of internal remedies as contemplated in subsection (2)(a) have
been concluded: or
(b) where no such remedies exist, on which the person concerned was
informed of the administrative action, became aware of the action
and the reasons for it or might reasonably have been expected to
have become aware of the action and the reasons." [own
underlining]
(47] Section 7(2)(a) of PAJA compels an applicant in a review (and absent an
exemption under exceptional circumstances) to first exhaust an available
internal remedy before instituting a review application :
"(2)(a) Subject to paragraph (c), no court or tribunal shall review an
administrative action in terms of this Act unless any internal remedy
provided for in any other law has first been exhausted ." (my
underlining)
[48) Section 96 of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act 28 of
2002 ("MPRDA") expressly provides for an internal remedy against a
decision to grant a Mining Right:
"96 Internal appeal process and access to courts
(1) Any person whose rights or legitimate expectations have been
materially and adversely affected or who is aggrieved by any
administrative decision in terms of this Act may appeal within 30
days becoming [sic] aware of such administrative decision in the
prescribed manner to-
(a) the Director-General, if it is an administrative decision by
a Regional Manager or any officer to whom the power has
14
been delegated, or a duty has been assigned by or under
this Act;
(b) the Minister, if it is an administrative decision that was
taken by the Director-General or the designated agency.
(2)(a) An appeal in terms of subsection (1) does not suspend
the administrative decision, unless it is suspended by the
Director-General or the Minister, as the case may be.
(b) Any subsequent application in terms of this Act must be
suspended pending the finalisation of the appeal
referred to in paragraph (a).
(3) No person may apply to the court for the review of an
administrative decision contemplated in subsection (1)
until that person has exhausted his or her remedies in
terms of that subsection .
(4) Sections 6, 7 (1) and 8 of the Promotion of Administrative
Justice Act, 2000 (Act 3 of 2000), apply to any court
proceedings contemplated in this section" (my
underlining)
[49) Therefore the relevant date from which the 180-day period is to be calculated
is not the date when Sefateng became aware of Lethabo's Mining Right but
the date when the section 96 MPRDA internal appeal was concluded.
(50) The internal appeal was concluded on 12 January 2022.33
[50.1) It should be noted that Lethabo did not participate in the internal
appeal process nor raise any opposition to the internal appeal
process.
33 FA12 at 0002-201
15
(51] Having considered the actions taken by the Applicant I find that Sefateng did
exhaust its internal remedy in terms of section 96 of the MPRDA and did
institute the review application on 11 July 2022 within 180 days.34
[52) This point in limine must accordingly also be dismissed .
DECISIONS LEADING TO THE REVIEW:
[53) The decisions which gave raise to the review and are challenged are the
following:
[53.1) the Second Respondent's decision dated 28 June 2017 to grant
Letabho (the Fifth Respondent) mining right
LP3015/1/1/1/10073 MR for andalusite and magnesite,
excluding chrome ore in terms of section 23 of the MPRDA which
overlapped with Sefateng's existing Mining Right land.
[53.2] the First Respondent's decision to refuse the Applicant's
administrative appeal with departmental reference 9/2/4/3/796
12 January 2022.
(54) The applicant in essence claims that Lethabo could not be granted a Mining
Right under circumstances where its prospecting right had already lapsed by
the time it applied for a Mining Right. Consequently, Lethabo did not possess
the sole and exclusive right to apply for a Mining Right at that time, which
was the basis for the finding against Sefateng during the internal appeal.
Additionally, the decision to grant Lethabo a Mining Right was contrary to a
Moratorium issued at the time. Lethabo's application for a Mining Right was
therefore unlawfully accepted and granted.
[55] Lethabo's failure to consult Sefateng, along with the issue of the granting an
overlapping Mining Right, have been the subject of ongoing administrative
proceedings for several years.
34 0002-1
16
APPLICABLE LEGISLATION AND CASELAW
[56] Under section 22(2}(b) of the MPRDA, a Mining Right application can only
be accepted if no one else holds prospecting rights, mining rights, mining
permits, or retention permits for the same mineral and land.
[57] The prohibition outlined in section 22(2)(b) of the MPRDA was upheld by the
Constitutional Court in the case of Minister of Mineral Resources v Sishen
Iron Ore Co (Ply) Ltd and Another 2014 (2) SA 603 (CC) (12 December
2013). The Court confirmed that if a right already exists in relation to the
same mineral on the same land, the state cannot grant this right to anyone
other than the current right-holder, as doing so would conflict with the
framework of the MPRDA.
[58] Section 22(4)(b) of the MPRDA mandated that upon applying for a Mining
Right, a party has to notify and consult with the lawful occupier and interested
and affected party, in the prescribed manner and incorporate the outcome of
this consultation into the relevant environmental reports. This requirement
must be adhered to.
[58.1] Proof of consultation is accordingly essential. In the absence of
such proof section 22(4)(b) of the MPRDA is violated.
[58.2] In the case of Bengwenyama Minerals (Ply) Ltd v Genorah
Resources (Ply) Ltd 2011 (3) BCLR 229 (CC), it was established
that this compulsory consultation serves the purpose of
achieving a prior fair and reasonable balance between
conflicting rights regarding the use of the land.
[59] Section 23(1 )(g) of the MPRDA states that compliance with the MPRDA is a
requirement for issuing a Mining Right. Consequently, the Minister or their
delegate may grant a Mining Right only if specific conditions are satisfied,
including that
" ... the applicant is not in contravention of any provision ... "
17
[60) Section 6(1) of the MPRDA explicitly mandates that administrative processes
and decisions made under the MPRDA must adhere to the principles of
lawfulness , reasonableness, and procedural fairness.
[61] A mining right, once granted and registered under the Mining Titles
Registration Act 16 of 1967, constitutes a limited real right in relation to the
relevant minerals and land in terms of section 5(1) of the Mineral and
Petroleum Resources Development Act (MPRDA) .
[62) One of the explicit objectives of the MPRDA is to ensure security of tenure
for mining companies that have invested substantial amounts of money into
mining ventures.
THE CONSTITUTION AND MPRDA
[63) The applicable rights in this application are outlined in the following sections
of the Constitution and MPRDA:
[63.1] Section 25 of the Constitution and section 2(g) of the MPRDA
ensure mining right holders have security of tenure. The issuance
of a Mining Right where there is already an existing one will impact
on the security of tenure.
[63.2] Section 5(1) of the MPRDA specifies that a mining right, once
granted and registered in accordance with the Mining Titles
Registration Act 16 of 1967, constitutes a limited real right in
relation to the minerals and land concerned.
[63.3] Section 33 of the Constitution provides individuals with the right to
lawful, reasonable, and procedurally fair administrative action. It
also permits court review if these rights are negatively impacted.
[64] The fundamental right to administrative justice is enshrined in section 33 of
the Constitution. The officials of the ORE also have a constitutional duty to
ensure that the administrative actions of prosecuting, processing, and
18
deciding on an application for a mining right, as well as any subsequent
internal appeal, are lawful, rational, reasonable, and procedurally fair.
[65] Section 237 of the Constitution requires that this constitutional duty be
performed diligently.
GROUNDS FOR REVIEW:
[66] Sefateng challenges the decision of the DMRE Director-General (the second
respondent) to grant Lethabo a Mining Right:
[66.1] notwithstanding a moratorium prohibiting the issuance of new
mining rights over the Land;35
[66.2] without consulting Sefateng, who already had a chrome mining
operation on the Land;
[66.3] which overlapped with Land (Farm Waterkop 113) and was
already part of the Sefateng Mining Right;
[66.4] for minerals Andalusite and Magnesite, when neither is found on
the Land; 36
[67] Sefateng also challenges the decision made by the DMRE Minister (the first
respondent) to reject the internal appeal.
[68) Sefateng's grounds of appeal contest the lawfulness, reasonableness, and
rationality of the decision to grant the Lethabo Mining Right.
[69) Sefateng argues it has a right to administrative justice under section 33 of
the Constitution and relevant MPRDA provisions. DRE officials are
constitutionally required to ensure that actions related to mining right
35 FA3 at 0002-96
36 FA6.1 and Regulation11 (1 )(c) in respect of the details of the identified mineral deposit at 0002-116
and 0002-132
19
applications and appeals are lawful, rational, reasonable, and procedurally
fair.
(70] The applicant contended that the appeal decision was made without
considering several pertinent factors and without the Minister of the DMRE
considering each of the grounds raised by Sefateng on appeal. As a result,
the applicant argued that the Minister did not fully address the issues before
him.
(71] The grounds for review are the following:
(71.1] A moratorium prohibited the granting of the Lethabo Mining Right
the;
[71.2] the Lethabo Mining Right was unlawfully accepted;
(71.3] the failure to consult with Sefateng;
(71.4] the minerals are not found on the land and
[71.5] the Lethabo Mining Right's application is defective.
(72] I will discuss and evaluate these grounds sequentially here in below.
EVALUATION OF GROUNDS OF REVIEW:
Moratorium prohibited the granting of the Lethabo Mining Right
(73] The Lethabo Mining Right was granted despite a moratorium issued by the
ORE Minister in the Government Gazette on 24 May 2013. This moratorium
restricted the granting of Mining Rights for 10 years over areas including the
Farm Waterkop 113, except for entities already holding a Prospecting Right
and exercising their exclusive right to apply for a mining right as per section
19(1)(b) of the MPRDA.
20
[74] In the case of the Minister of Mineral Resources v Mawetse (SA) Mining
Corporation Ltc/37 the Supreme Court of Appeal was tasked with determining
the commencement date for the duration of a right. The Court determined
that the duration should be calculated from the date when the applicant was
informed that the right would be granted, rather than from the date of notarial
execution or any dates specified within the right itself
[75) The DMRE Regional Manager notes that Lethabo held a Prospecting Right
granted on 19 December 2007'JB for a period of 5 years. According to the
Mawetse judgment , the 5-year period of the Lethabo Prospecting Right
ended on 18 December 2012. The record shows that, based on the DMRE's
Verification of Spatial Data, the Lethabo Prospecting Right expired.
[76] The Lethabo Mining Right was granted on approximately 26 June 2017. This
was in conflict with the moratorium that prohibited the granting of additional
mining rights on Farm Waterkop 113 without a valid Prospecting Right.
[77] Based solely on this reasoning, the decision to grant Lethabo a Mining Right
and the subsequent decision to refuse the internal appeal are both subject
to review and annulment under the Act.
[78] Consequently, the decision of the DMRE Director-General to grant the
Lethabo Mining Right, as well as the DMRE Minister's decision to refuse the
internal appeal,
[78.1] was made in contravention of the moratorium issued under
section 49 of the MPRDA and
[78.2] was based on the incorrect claim that Lethabo had an exclusive
right to apply for a mining right as a Prospecting Right holder.
37 2016 1 SA 306 SCA
38 FA9
21
[79] These decisions are subject to review and potential annulment due to the
following reasons:
[79.1] the decisions were notably affected by a legal error, as outlined in
section 6(2)(d) of PAJA;
[79.2] these decisions did not consider this significant and relevant fact,
as required by section 6(2)(e)(iii) of PAJA;
(79.3] constitute administrative actions that are not logically related to
the purpose of the empowering provision, as envisaged by
section 6(2)(f)(ii)(bb ).
[79.4] and constitute unconstitutional and unlawful administrative action,
as contemplated by section 6(2)(i).
Lethabo Mining Right unlawfully accepted
[80] Since 24 May 2013, Sefateng has held a ceded Prospecting Right.39 Under
section 19(1)(b) of the MPRDA, Sefateng possesses the exclusive right to
apply for a Mining Right for Chrome ore over the Farm Waterkop 113.
"19 Rights and obligations of holder of prospecting right
(1) In addition to the rights referred to in section 5, the holder of a
prospecting right has-
39 FA2.2 at {b} suQject to subsection (2), the exclusive right to apply for and be
granted a mining right in respect of the mineral and prospecting area in
question;" (my underlining)
22
[81) Sefateng's application for a Mining Right, submitted on 24 May 2013,40 was
already under consideration by the DMRE when Lethabo submitted its
application for a Mining Right on or about 26 August 2013.41
[82) The record indicates that Lethabo applied for the minerals: PGMs,
Magnesite, Andalusite , Iron, Titanium, and Chrome over the farms Waterkop
113, Mecklenburg 112, and Malekskraal 509.42
[83} The Lethabo Mining Right was accepted on 29 January 2014, pending the
Sefateng Mining Right. On 12 September 2014, Sefateng was granted a
Mining Right for Chrome ore, simultaneous with the acceptance of Lethabo's
application by the Regional Manager.
[84) According to section 22(2)(b) of the MPRDA, the DRE Regional Manager
can only accept a Mining Right application if no one else holds a prospecting
right, Mining Right, mining permit, or retention permit for the same mineral
on the same land.
(85) In accordance with section 22(2)(b) of the MPRDA, the DMRE Regional
Manager (the fourth respondent) was precluded from accepting Lethabo's
Mining Right.
(86) At this early stage of the MPRDA process, the Lethabo Mining Right was
unlawfully and impermissibly accepted, thereby contravening section
22(2)(b) of the MPRDA.
(87) Section 23(1 )(g) of the MPRDA states that compliance with the MPRDA is a
jurisdictional condition for granting a Mining Right. The DMRE Minister (or
their delegate, in this case the DMRE Director-General) is authorized to grant
a Mining Right only if, among other conditions , "(g) the applicant is not in
contravention of any provision" of the MPRDA.
40 FA2.2 at
41 Record p 520
42 Record p509 -520
23
[88] Lethabo's application for a Mining Right was granted beyond the scope of
the provisions outlined in the MRPDA. Consequently, the DMRE Director­
General did not fulfil its duty to adhere to the mandatory and material
procedures and conditions set forth by the MPRDA.
[89] The Minister of the DMRE did not consider this ground of appeal, thereby
failing to properly deliberate on the matter. Consequently, the denial of the
internal appeal was unreasonable.
[90] The decision to award Lethabo a Mining Right and the decision to deny the
internal appeal are therefore both subject to review under PAJA. 43
Failure to consult
[91) A meaningful consultation process is required to advance the objectives of
the MPRDA. The notification and consultation with interested and affected
parties align with the specified objectives of the MPRDA as set out in section
2.
[92) The MPRDA aims to ensure that the nation's mineral and petroleum
resources are exploited in an orderly and ecologically sustainable manner,
while promoting social and economic development.
[93] The Constitutional Court44 emphasised the importance of consultation and
clarified the nature and obligation to consult.
[94] Section 22(4)(b) of the MPRDA required Lethabo, when applying for a Mining
Right, to consult in the prescribed manner with Sefateng as the lawful
occupier and interested and affected party.
[95] After being notified of the acceptance of its Mining Right application, Lethabo
was required to consult with the landowner, the lawful occupier (Sefateng),
43 Sections 6(2)(d), section 6(2)(2)(iii), section 6(2)(e)(vi) and section 6(2)(i) of PAJA.
44 Bengwenyama Minerals (Pty) Ltd v Genorah Resources (Pty) Ltd 2011 (3) BCLR 229 (CC
24
and any interested or affected parties, and incorporate the consultation
results into the environmental reports.
[96] This mandatory consultation serves an evident and significant purpose to
achieve a prior equitable and just balance between conflicting rights
concerning the use of the land.
[97] Lethabo breached MPRDA provisions by not consulting Sefateng, thereby
prohibiting the granting of a Mining Right to Lethabo.
[98] Lethabo applied for a Mining Right over the same land for which Sefateng
had already applied for, and was subsequently granted, a Mining Right for
Chrome ore.
[99] The granting of Lethabo's Mining Right resulted in overlapping physical
mining operations, overlapping environmental management as per the
approved environmental management plans, and an overlap in the
implementation of mine health and safety legislation. This situation has the
potential to cause significant health and safety concerns.
(100] Had Lethabo complied with the MPRDA, Sefateng and Lethabo could have
consulted and possibly reached an agreement on how to manage these
overlaps to ensure compliance with legislation . 45
(101] Consultation would have been necessary to prevent conflicting legislative
terms and conditions . It is important to consult with existing Mining Right
holders, such as Sefateng, who operate a Chrome mine on the overlapping
land. This consultation helps address uncertainties and prevents practical
and legal complications. Holders of competing rights may choose to enter
into a working agreement, which would then be reflected in their respective
Mining Work Programmes for approval by the DMRE. Such arrangements
are optional and not mandatory.
45 Sedibeng Iron Ore (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy 2021 JDR 3166 (GP)
25
[102] The OMRE Regional Manager, in recommending to the OMRE Minister on
the internal appeal, concluded that Lethabo was not legally required to
consult Sefateng.
[103] The basis for this conclusion was that, at the time Lethabo submitted its
application for a Mining Right, Sefateng had not yet been granted a Mining
Right but only had a pending application. Consequently, it is asserted that
Sefateng was in the same position as Lethabo and therefore not considered
an interested and affected party requiring consultation by Lethabo. The ORE
Regional Manager further argues that once the Sefateng Mining Right was
granted, Lethabo's duty to consult did not apply retrospectively.
[104) The OMRE Regional Manager further advised that a task force be formed to
facilitate negotiations among all appellants, including Sefateng and Lethabo,
regarding how the four rights could coexist within the same area.46
[105] There appeared to be a misunderstanding by the OMRE Regional Manager
regarding the status of the Sefateng, and there are errors in the reasoning
provided.
[106] The analysis by the ORE Regional Manager, albeit flawed in reasoning,
brings to light several significant facts:
46 FA9 at [106.1] the Sefateng Mining Right application was lodged before the
Lethabo Mining Right application;
[106.2) the Sefateng Mining Right application was accepted and granted
before the acceptance of the Lethabo Mining Right application;
[106.3] Lethabo did not consult Sefateng either at the time when the
Lethabo Mining Right was accepted, or thereafter or before the
granting of the Lethabo Mining Right;
26
(106.4] the DMRE Regional Manager was aware that no consultation with
Sefateng took place; and
(106.5) that the conclusion of a working agreement is crucial and the only
way to have competing mining rights co-exist over overlapping
Land.
{107) Section 22(4)(b) of the MPRDA clearly stipulates that consultation is
mandated after the acceptance of a Mining Right application , rather than at
the time of submission of the Mining Right application .
"(4) If the Regional Manager accepts the application, the Regional Manager
must, within 14 days from the date of acceptance. notify the applicant
in writing-
(b) to consult in the prescribed manner with the landowner, lawful
occupier and any interested and affected party and include the result of
the consultation in the relevant environmental reports." (my underlining)
[108] Section 22(5) of the MPRDA also requires the DMRE Minister to expressly
consider the results of the consultation.
[109] Regulation 1 of the MPRDA Regulations define an 'interested and affected
party· to mean:
"a natural or juristic person or an association of persons with a direct interest
in the proposed or existing prospecting or mining operation or who may be
affected by the proposed or existing prospecting or mining operation ... "
(11 0] It is unequivocal that Sefateng has a direct interest and may be impacted by
a mining operation overlapping in Land. Sefateng is evidently an interested
and affected party and, at the time, was also the lawful occupier of Land
involved in overlapping physical mining operations, environmental
27
management , mine health and safety legislation, and the mining work
programme.
[111} The DMRE Regional Manager, in his recommendation to the DMRE Minister
regarding the internal appeal, and the DMRE Minister, in deciding the internal
appeal, both did not account for the following:
[111.1) the MPRDA compels prior consultation;
[111.2] that there is nothing which statutory compels the conclusion of a
working agreement; and
[111.3] that consultation with Sefateng cannot take place after the fact.
(112) The DMRE Regional Manager's recommendation for the parties to agree on
a working agreement post-approval further highlights the forced attempt to fix
a clearly flawed Lethabo Mining Right.
[113] The reasoning of both the DMRE Regional Manager and the DMRE Minister
is significant ly flawed and leads to potentially severe consequences, thereby
hindering the objectives of the MPRDA. Without such a prior agreement that
has been duly consulted on, mining operations cannot be conducted without
violating various provisions of the MPRDA, as well as environmental and mine
health and safety legislation.
[114] Consultation is essential to fulfil the objectives of sections 2(g) and 2(h) of the
MPRDA. It is undeniable that Sefateng, exercising its exclusive right to apply
for a Mining Right over the same land that overlaps Lethabo's application , has
always been an interested and affected party.
[115) Lethabo acknowledged Corridor Mining Resources (Ply} Ltd (predecessor to
Sefateng) as an interested party, so there is no reason to decide otherwise for
Sefateng, a fact known by ORME when making the decisions .
[116] The ORE Regional Manager's recommendations to the DMRE Minister were
influenced by legal errors, and failure to consult with Sefateng, negating the
purpose of such consultation.
28
[117] Section 23(1 )(g) of the MPRDA, along with section 22(4 ), required Lethabo to
consult with Sefateng before a Mining Right could be granted. According to
section 23(3), the DMRE Minister had to refuse the mining right application if
it failed to meet subsection (1) requirements.
[118) The Record and answering affidavit show that there was no consultation with
Sefateng. The documentation indicates that Lethabo's only attempt at
consultation was a notification sent to Corridor Mining Resources, which
preceded Sefateng, rather than to Sefateng itself. 47
[119) Lethabo has failed to provide any proof of consultation with Sefateng, despite
being confronted with this major shortcoming to its application for a Mining
Right. Lethabo's failure to consult Sefateng has also not been addressed.
[120] The DMRE Regional Manager wrongly concluded in the internal appeal that
consultation was unnecessary, contradicting section 22(4)(b) and several
other provisions of the MPRDA.
[121] The Director-General of the DMRE did not fulfil the obligation to adhere to the
mandatory and significant procedures and conditions stipulated by the
MPRDA.
[122] A decision maker must apply his/her mind to a decision and not exercise a
power arbitrarily or capriciously. When a decision is made without considering
relevant factors, or based on irrelevant ones, the decision maker acts
arbitrarily. Consequently, their decision is subject to review.
[123] When a decision maker ignores the specific question at hand, they fail to use
the discretion given by the statute, making their decision flawed.48 A decision
is unlawful if the decision maker does not properly consider important factors
or gives undue weight to less significant ones.49
47 FA4.1
48 Littlewood v Minister of Home Affairs 2006 (3) SA 474 (SCA) para 16-17
49 Bangtoo Bros and others v National Transport Commission 1973 (4} 667 (N}
29
[124] In accordance with section 6(2)(b) of PAJA, a decision can be reviewed if a
mandatory and material procedure or condition prescribed by an
empowering provision was not followed. This provision requires decision
makers to aim to achieve the objectives of the Act when making decisions
under legislation. This is especially important when the objectives are clearly
defined, and the legislation specifies numerous procedures and
considerations necessary to meet those objectives. An invalid decision­
making process results in an irrational decision.
[125] According to section 6(2)(h) of PAJA, a decision is subject to review if it is
deemed so unreasonable that no reasonable person would have made it.
The irrationality of a decision is further demonstrated when it lacks support
from the reasons provided. Therefore, a decision made without considering
input from key stakeholders, or without considering essential information
needed for a proper decision, or without thoroughly addressing the questions
at hand, cannot be considered procedurally rational, fair, or reasonable.
(126] Failure to adhere to jurisdictional conditions of the MPRDA is a reviewable
non-compliance with mandatory procedures . The DMRE Director-General 's
decision to grant Lethabo a Mining Right was unlawfully granted and
procedurally unfair. Despite clear evidence of a tack of required consultation,
the DMRE Minister dismissed the internal appeal. As a result, the appeal
decision is unreasonable and not logically connected to the available
information . The crucial significance of administrative justice within the
regulatory framework of the MPRDA cannot be overstated.
[127] Consequently , beyond the grounds for reviewing the decision to grant
Lethabo a Mining Right, the appeal decision is also subject to review under
section 6(2)(h) and section 6(2)(f)(ii)(cc) of PAJA.
[128] These decisions were significantly impacted by a legal error, as the Director­
General of the ORE and the Minister of the DMRE failed to recognize that
prior consultation is a mandatory condition for the granting of a mining right
under section 23(1 )(g) in conjunction with section 22(4)(b) of the MPRDA.
30
(129) The reasoning that Sefateng did not qualify as an interested party is
incorrect. This made the administrative decisions procedurally unfair (section
6(2)(f) of PAJA), considered irrelevant factors (section 6(2)(e}(iii)), and was
not rationally connected to the purpose of consultation (section 6(2)(f)(i}(bb}).
The outcome was so unreasonable that no reasonable person could have
made the same decision (section 6(2)(h}}, making these decisions
unconstitutional and unlawful (section 6(2}(i)).
Minerals do not occur on the Land
(130) It is undisputed that Andalusite and Magnesite minerals covered by the
contested Mining Right are not found on Farm Waterkop 113.
[ 131) Section 23 of the M PROA provides that:
"(1) Subject to subsection (4), the Minister must grant a mining right if-
(a) the mineral can be mined optimally in accordance with the mining
work programme ... "
(132) The Record shows that Lethabo's Mining Work Programme (MWP) is
deficient and lacks detail in many areas.50
[133) The MWP of Lethabo lists minerals, including Magnetite, Andalusite, PGMs,
Iron, Titanium, and Chrome. However, the Lethabo Mining Right was granted
for Magnesite, not Magnetite .
[134) The MWP does not mention the mineral for which the Lethabo Mining Right
was granted. Although Andalusite is mentioned , it does not occur on Farm
Waterkop 113.
50 Record pages 467 -504.
31
[135) Paragraph 4.3 of the MWP, which is intended to address the geological map
of the land, only references the "chromite" layers, without reflecting any other
minerals.
(136) Section 1 of the MPRDA defines a 'mining work programme' to mean:
"the planned mining work programme to be followed in order to mine a
mineral resource optimally,"
(137] Section 25 of the MPRDA obligates of a Mining Right holder to conduct its
mining in accordance with its MWP:
"25 Rights and obligations of holder of mining right
(2) The holder of a mining right must -
(b) actively conduct mining in accordance with the mining work
programme; .. "
[138] The Lethabo Mining Right is therefore flawed and cannot be issued for
minerals that are not included in the MWP or for minerals that are absent
from the Land.
[139] The Director-General of the DMRE failed to consider these significant
discrepancies in the MWP, resulting in an absence of a rational or reasonable
connection or basis for granting the Mining Right for minerals that do not
exist on the Land or were not addressed in the MWP.
[140) The Lethabo Mining Right should be reviewed and set aside because the
MWP has a fatal defect: there is a discrepancy between the minerals on the
land, those listed in the MWP, and those granted in the mining right.
32
Lethabo Mining Right application defective
[141] In its answering affidavit, Lethabo claims that it was granted a Mining Right
for Chrome ore, which Sefateng currently possesses . However, the Record
does not contain any documentation confirming the granting of a Mining
Right to Lethabo, despite this issue being central to the Review.
Furthermore, Lethabo has not produced a copy of its Mining Right.
[142] Based on Lethabo's claim of holding a Mining Right over Chrome ore, it is
indicated that the Lethabo Mining Right may be subject to review and
possible invalidation, as the MPRDA prohibits the issuance of two Mining
Rights for the same mineral and land.
[143] The Constitutional Court in Minister of Mineral Resources v Sishen Iron Ore
Co (Pfy) Ltd and Another 2014 (2) SA 603 (CC) (12 December 2013)
confirmed that under section 22(2)(b) of the MPRDA, the state cannot grant
mineral rights to anyone other than the existing right-holder for the same
mineral and land. Based on Lethabo's Mining Right, the disputed Mining
Right should be revoked upon review.
[144] Upon review, the Record indicates that Lethabo's Mining Right application is
deficient. There was inadequate public participation, and Lethabo's Mine
Work Program (MWP) lacks essential details and contains numerous
deficiencies. Despite assertions that environmental studies were conducted
on the Farms Waterkop 113, Mecklenburg 112, and Malekskraal 509, there
is no reference to Sefateng or its neighbouring entities Chromex or Bauba.51
[145] Lethabo's MWP submission failed to include required Regulation 8
information, despite previously holding a lapsed Prospecting Right.
Specifically, it marked "N/A" for comprehensive progress reports on previous
prospecting, which is necessary according to Regulation 8. This omission
violates the MPRDA and the responsibilities of a prospecting right holder,
51 Record pages 762-1238
33
making the Lethabo Mining Right ineligible for approval by the DMRE under
section 23(1 )(g) of the MPRDA.
(146) In paragraph 5.9 of the MWP, it is claimed that the price used in the cashflow
forecast is USO $380 per tonne, which applies only to Chrome. Titanium and
Vanadium are measured and priced per kg, while PGMs are priced per
ounce. This discrepancy means the financing forecast for Lethabo was
misrepresented and flawed, making it impossible for the DMRE to approve
the Mining Right, as it requires a compatible financing plan under section
23( 1 )( c) of the M PROA.
(147) Without an approved MWP, Lethabo could not have received a Mining Right.
Therefore, due to these significant flaws in the MWP, the Lethabo Mining
Right should be reviewed and set aside.
CONCLUSION:
(148) Sefateng as a result of the specified grounds of appeal seeks a review and
setting aside of the decisions, as well as an order to correct and substitute
the decision to grant the Lethabo Mining Right with a decision to refuse the
Mining Right.
(149] This Court is empowered both by section 172(1)(b) of the Constitution as
well as section 8(1) of the PAJA to make any order that is just and equitable.
[150) Section 8(1)(c)(i) of the PAJA permits the remittance of the matter for
reconsideration by the administrator . Additionally, Section 8(1 )(c)(ii)
stipulates that in exceptional circumstances, a court is authorized to
substitute or modify the administrative action.
34
[151] In Gauteng Gambling Board v Silverstar Development & others52 Heher JA
said:
"An administrative functionary that is vested by statute with the power to
consider and approve or reject an application is generally best equipped by
the variety of its composition , by experience , and its access to sources of
relevant information and expertise to make the right decision. The court
typically has none of these advantages and is required to recognise its own
limitations ... That is why remittal is almost always the prudent and proper
course."
[152] Exceptional circumstances existed in the aforesaid case, deeming remittal
unnecessary and opting for substitution due to the inevitable outcome.
[153] In Trencon Construction (Pty) Ltd v Industrial Development Corporation of
South Africa Ltc/53 the Constitutional Court highlighted factors that should
inherently hold more weight in this inquiry:
[153.1]
[153.2] Firstly, whether the court is in as good a position as the
administrator to make the decision; and
Secondly whether the decision of the administrato r is a foregone
conclusion .
[153.3] Thereafter the court should consider other relevant factors,
including delay, bias or the incompetence of the administrator .
[154] The main consideration is whether a substitution order is fair and just,
considering all parties involved. This requires an evaluation of each case
based on its specific facts and circumstances .
52 2005 4 SA 67 (SCA) para 29
53 2015 5 SA (CC) at para 47
35
[155) I agree with counsel for the Applicant that this is an extraordinary case, and
there are significant grounds to employ the court's authority in favour of
Sefateng:
[155.1) The outcome appears inevitable , given the DMRE's ongoing
position which contradicts the MPRDA. They maintained that
Sefateng was either exempted from consultation requirements or
that consultation could occur retrospectively.
[155.2) It is abundantly clear that anda/usite and magnesite are not found
on the Land.
[155.3) The internal appeal has already faced excessive delays, and
further postponement to the DMRE Minister or Director-General
would be unjust.
[155.3] The Rule of Law necessitates certainty and predictability, enabling
ordinary citizens to manage their affairs in advance.
[156] Accordingly, I find that the request by Sefateng to have the original decision
corrected and substituted is warranted .
[157] Costs must follow the event. Due to the intricacy of this matter the costs shall
include counsel's fees on scale C.
Order
[1] The applicant is granted leave to file the further affidavit dated 20 August 2024;
[2] The first respondent's decision to refuse the applicant's administrative appeal
with Departmental Reference 9/2/4/3/796 on 12 January 2022, is reviewed and
set aside;
36
[3] The decision of the second respondent dated 28 June 2017 to grant mining right
LP 30/5/1/2/2/10073 MR and the consequent Mining Right Notarially Executed
on 3 February 2023, for andalusite and magnesite, excluding chrome ore,
in terms of section 23 of the Mineral and Petroleum ResourcesDeve lopment Act
28 of 2002 (11MPRDA11
), in respect of farm Waterkop 113 KT in the Limpopo
Province, to the fifth respondent ("the Mining Right"), is reviewed and is set aside;
[4] The aforesaid decisions are hereby replaced and substituted with the following
decision by the second respondent to refuse the fifth respondent's application for
a Mining Right namely:
The fifth respondent's application for a Mining Right [LP 30/5/112/2/10073 MR] in
respect of the andalusite and magnesite over the Farm Waterkop 113 KT in the
Limpopo Province, is refused.
[5] The First, Second and Fifth Respondents are to pay the costs of this application
inclusive of Counsel's fees on scale C, jointly and severally, the one paying the
other to be absolved.
S VAN ASWEGEN
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
PRETORIA
37
For the Applicant:
For the Respondents : Adv N Fourie instructed by Venter & De
Villiers Attorneys
No appearance
38