Saamwerk Soutwerke (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Mineral Resources and Another

Saamwerk Soutwerke (Pty) Ltd sought to mine salt at Vrysoutpan and applied for a mining right under the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act 28 of 2002 (MPRDA). Although its application was approved in principle in September 2006, the mining right was only executed in June 2011. During this period, SA Soutwerke (Pty) Ltd remained in possession of Vrysoutpan and continued mining salt, allegedly relying on a forged mining permit (MP169/2004). Saamwerk alleged that it was prevented from mining between January 2007 and June 2011 due to fraudulent conduct by SA Soutwerke and negligent administrative omissions by the Department of Mineral Resources. Saamwerk sued the Minister and SA Soutwerke in delict for pure economic loss in the form of lost profits.

The appeal against the Minister was dismissed with costs. The appeal against SA Soutwerke was upheld with costs. The court declared SA Soutwerke liable for such damages as Saamwerk may prove it suffered as a result of being unable to mine salt at Vrysoutpan during the period 6 September 2008 to 25 June 2011. The application to adduce further evidence on appeal was dismissed.

The case is significant for clarifying the limits of delictual liability for pure economic loss arising from administrative omissions, reaffirming the requirement of wrongfulness. It also illustrates when an appellate court may interfere with credibility findings and confirms that reliance on forged regulatory permits can ground delictual liability for fraud. The judgment further addresses prescription in the context of continuous wrongs and procedural principles governing the admission of further evidence on appeal.