• Law Reports
  • Transvaal Gold Mining Estates Limited and Another v …

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

35 Reportability
Mining Law
View PDF SAFLII Source
Share WhatsApp LinkedIn X Email

Brief Summary

Appeal — Leave to appeal — Interlocutory order — First Respondent sought leave to appeal against an interlocutory order interdicting it from removing or processing a mining dump pending further proceedings — Court found that the order did not have a final effect and that the appeal focused on the reasons for judgment rather than the substantive order — Leave to appeal refused as the First Respondent failed to demonstrate that the interests of justice warranted such leave.

Comprehensive Summary

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.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, MPUMALANGA DIVISION,
(MBOMBELA MAIN SEAT)

Case No.: 2025-089763

In the application between:
TRANSVAAL GOLD MINING ESTATES
LIMITED First Applicant

SABIE MINES (PTY) LTD Second Applicant

And

EMLANJENI REVOLUTION (PTY) First Respondent
LTD

THABA CHWEU LOCAL Second Respondent
MUNICIPALITY
DELETE WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE

(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED YES/NO


03 DECEMBER 2025_ NGWENYA AJ _________
DATE SIGNATURE

2


DEPARTMENT OF ARICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT
LAND AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS,
MPUMALANGA Third Respondent
___________________________________________________________________

JUDGMENT


NGWENYA AJ

[1] This is an application for leave to appeal against the judgment and order I
granted in favour of the Applicant on the 09th of July 2025.

[2] The substantive order that I granted is that: ‘the First Respondent is interdicted
from unlawfully removing or processing the mining dump situated on Farm
Waterval 168 JT, pending the determination of the relief sought in part B’.

[3] The order is interlocutory in that its existence depends on the outcome of Part
B of the application.

[4] The Respondent has listed ten grounds of appeal. However, the argument
focused on paragraphs 20 -23 of my judgment. This is also reflected in the
heads of argument.

[5] Counsel for the First Respondent argued that the findings in paragraphs 20-23
of the judgment have a final effect and therefore the order I made is appealable.

3

Counsel further submitted that the order is appealable based on the interests
of justice. I agree that an interlocutory order is appealable if it has a final effect
and, most importantly, if the interests of justice permit.

[6] However, I disagree that the order has a final effect. In any case, the First
Respondent does not say the substantive order has a final effect; it instead says
it’s the findings in paragraphs 20 -23 that have a final effect. It is trite that an
appeal lies against the substantive order and the findings(reasons). I address
this aspect below.

[7] In the First Respondent’s heads of argument, it is submitted that my finding that
the Applicants established a prima facie right because they mined the farm
before 1950 disposes of the matter or a substantial part thereof. This is not the
only reason I found that the Applicants established a prima facie right. In
addition, I found that the First Applicant holds mining rights under the new
mining laws on the farm, and that the Applicants issued environmental
guarantees on the farm (see paragraphs 24.2 and 24.3 of the judgment).
Therefore, even if I am wrong on the point raised by the First Respondent, that
does not affect the substantive order, as I shall demonstrate below. In any case,
the decisive question is ownership of the mining dump. I made no finding or an
order on this question. This will be determined in part B.


[8] Accordingly, the First Respondent has not demonstrated that it is in the
interest of justice that leave to appeal should be granted.

4

[9] If I am wrong on the above, I still find that leave to appeal should be refused
on the following reasons:

9.1 The grounds of appeal amount to nothing but criticism of this court’s
findings (reasons). The First Respondent submits that the court’s
findings in paragraphs 20 -23 have a final effect, instead of the
substantive order. As already stated above, an appeal lies against the
substantive order and not the reasons.

9.2 Even if my reasons in paragraphs 20 -23 are wrong, the First
Respondent still has to convince this court that a different reasoning
would affect the substantive order.

9.3 In Cape Empowerment Trust Ltd v Fisher Hoffman Sithole 2013 (5)
SA (1) 183 (SCA), the SCA held as follows at paragraph 39:

“[39] In the result , I agree with the ultimate conclusion arrived at by
Davis J, albeit for different reasons. This renders it unnecessary to
decide on the correctness of his reasoning, since an appeal does not
lie against the reasons for judgment but against the substantive order
made by the court a quo…”

9.4 Accordingly, the Applicant’s Counsel’s submission that the First
Respondent is appealing against the reasons and not the substantive
order is correct.

6

Biopelo.ndlovu@counsel.co.za
Ziyanda.sibeko@webberwentzel.com
Jared.Ishmael@webberwentzel.com


Counsel for the Respondent: Adv. K. Shai and Adv M. Magagula
Instructed by: SHONGWE NM ATTORNEYS
Email Address: Nqobizwe@snmattorneys.co.za
Law@snmattorneys.co.za

Back to Law Reports