Maledu and Others v Itereleng Bakgatla Mineral Resources (Pty) Limited and Another

The applicants, members of the Lesetlheng village community, claimed to be owners of farm Wilgespruit 2 J.Q. in the North West Province, which they and their predecessors had occupied for nearly a century. The farm was registered in the name of the Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform in trust for the Bakgatla-Ba-Kgafela Community. The applicants' forebears allegedly purchased the farm in 1919, but due to racially discriminatory laws, it could not be registered in their names. The applicants occupied and conducted farming operations on the farm. In 2004, the first respondent (IBMR) obtained a prospecting right, and in 2008 was awarded a mining right over the farm by the Department of Mineral Resources. A surface lease agreement was concluded in 2008 between IBMR, the Bakgatla-Ba-Kgafela Tribal Authority, and the Minister. When respondents commenced mining preparations in 2014, this affected the applicants' occupation. After the applicants obtained a spoliation order, the respondents approached the High Court seeking eviction of the applicants and an interdict. The High Court granted the eviction and interdict. The applicants were holders of informal land rights under IPILRA.

• Whether the respondents were required to exhaust the internal dispute resolution mechanism in section 54 of the MPRDA before approaching a court for eviction and interdict
• Whether the grant of a mining right constituted deprivation of the applicants' informal land rights under IPILRA
• Whether the applicants' informal land rights were validly extinguished in accordance with section 2 of IPILRA
• Whether the applicants had been properly consulted as required by the MPRDA and IPILRA
• Whether holders of mining rights can invoke common law remedies for eviction when the MPRDA provides specific mechanisms for resolving access disputes
• The relationship between the MPRDA and IPILRA and how they should be read together

1. Leave to appeal is granted. 2. Both Mr Mdumiseni Dlamini and the Land Access Movement of South Africa are admitted as amici curiae. 3. The applications by the amici curiae to introduce new evidence are dismissed. 4. The appeal is upheld. 5. The order of the High Court is set aside and substituted with: "The application is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel." 6. The order of the Supreme Court of Appeal dismissing the applicants' application for leave to appeal in that Court is set aside. 7. The respondents must pay the applicants' costs in this Court and the Supreme Court of Appeal, including the costs of two counsel where employed.

The binding legal principles established are: (1) Section 54 of the MPRDA establishes a mandatory internal dispute resolution mechanism that must be exhausted before a mining right holder can approach a court for eviction or interdict when a landowner or lawful occupier refuses access to land. (2) Mining right holders cannot bypass section 54 and resort to common law remedies for eviction, as section 4(2) of the MPRDA provides that where common law is inconsistent with the MPRDA, the MPRDA prevails. (3) The MPRDA and IPILRA must be read harmoniously - the MPRDA does not override the protections afforded to holders of informal land rights under IPILRA. (4) The grant of a mining right and conclusion of a surface lease agreement constitute deprivation of informal land rights under IPILRA. (5) Holders of informal land rights under IPILRA cannot be deprived of those rights without their consent, or in the case of communal land, without deprivation in accordance with the custom and usage of the community as prescribed in section 2(2) and (4) of IPILRA. (6) The existence of a valid mining right does not automatically render the occupation by holders of informal land rights unlawful - both sets of rights can coexist and must be balanced. (7) IPILRA, as remedial legislation linked to section 25(6) of the Constitution, must be interpreted purposively and generously to afford holders of informal land rights the fullest possible protection.

The Court made several non-binding observations: (1) It declined to determine the ownership question, noting that this was pending before another forum under the Land Titles Adjustment Act and it would be "ill-advised" to make a definitive finding on ownership at that stage. (2) The Court expressly left open the complex question of whether it is legally permissible for applicants to mount a collateral challenge to the validity of a mining right against private entities (the mining right holders) rather than against the state functionary who granted the right, noting this "must be left open for another day when it has more appropriately arisen." (3) The Court did not decide whether the mining right was invalid due to failure to obtain the applicants' consent, stating this must be assumed valid in the respondents' favour as it had not been set aside. (4) The Court emphasized the common law principles requiring both landowners and mining right holders to exercise their respective rights civiliter modo (reasonably) to minimize interference with each other, fostering coexistence of rights. (5) Petse AJ quoted extensively from Frantz Fanon on the importance of land to colonized peoples, and provided historical context about land dispossession and the socio-political discourse on land redistribution in South Africa. (6) The judgment discussed the concept of "free, prior and informed consent" derived from international law, particularly the African Charter, though this was not essential to the decision. (7) The Court noted that consultation under the MPRDA must involve informing affected parties in sufficient detail to allow them to assess impact, and consulting with a view to reaching agreement satisfactory to both parties.

This case is of fundamental importance to South African mining and land rights jurisprudence. It clarifies the relationship between the MPRDA and IPILRA, establishing that these statutes must be read harmoniously rather than as conflicting regimes. The judgment affirms that holders of informal land rights enjoy constitutional protection under section 25(6), and that mining right holders cannot simply evict informal rights holders without following proper procedures. The case establishes that section 54 of the MPRDA creates a mandatory internal dispute resolution mechanism that must be exhausted before courts can be approached for eviction remedies. It reinforces the principle that the grant of a mining right does not automatically extinguish surface rights or render occupation unlawful - both sets of rights must be balanced and can coexist. The judgment is particularly significant for historically disadvantaged communities whose land tenure remains legally insecure due to past discriminatory laws, providing them with meaningful protection against displacement by mining operations. It emphasizes the importance of genuine consultation and informed consent before communities can be deprived of their land rights. The case also affirms the constitutional status of customary law under section 211(3) and requires courts to interpret statutes in a manner that gives effect to constitutional values including dignity, equality, and redress for historical injustices.