Samancor Chrome Limited v VDH Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Others

Samancor Chrome Limited applied for a mining right under s 22 of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act 28 of 2002 (MPRDA) to mine chrome on several farms in Limpopo. The Regional Manager accepted the application and required Samancor to conduct environmental assessments and to notify and consult interested and affected parties. Samancor undertook an extensive public participation and consultation process, including meetings, notices, and engagement with traditional authorities. Despite this, the Director-General refused the mining right on the basis that proof of consultation had not been submitted. Samancor appealed internally, and the Minister of Mineral Resources upheld the appeal and granted the mining right. Rival mining companies, VDH Holdings and Absolute Group Management, brought review proceedings in the High Court, which set aside the Minister’s decision on the ground that Samancor failed to comply with s 22(4)(b). Samancor appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal was upheld. The High Court’s order reviewing and setting aside the Minister’s decision was set aside and replaced with an order dismissing the review application with costs. The cross-appeal, the application to lead further evidence, and the application to intervene were all dismissed.

The judgment clarifies the scope and content of the consultation obligation under s 22(4)(b) of the MPRDA and confirms that substantial, reasonable compliance is sufficient. It reinforces that consultation is a fact-specific inquiry and that courts should not lightly interfere with administrative decisions where extensive engagement has occurred. The case is important for mining law and administrative review standards in South Africa.