Samancor Chrome Limited v Bila Civil Contractors (Pty) Ltd

Samancor Chrome Limited, the holder of a converted mining right over Remaining Extent Portion 2 of the farm Elandskraal 469 JQ, brought contempt proceedings against Bila Civil Contractors (Pty) Ltd, which held a prospecting right over the same land. Two High Court orders were relevant: (a) an order by Neukircher J (1 July 2019) interdicting Bila from conducting mining operations and from removing chrome ore beyond what was permitted by its prospecting right; and (b) an order by Janse van Niewenhuizen J (10 December 2019) interdicting all prospecting and related activities pending the outcome of an internal environmental appeal lodged by Samancor under NEMA. Samancor alleged that, between November 2019 and July 2020, Bila continued mining and/or prospecting operations in breach of both orders, relying on aerial photographs, drone surveys, and expert calculations indicating large quantities of chrome ore removed. Bila denied contempt, contending that the orders were suspended by applications for leave to appeal and, in respect of the second order, that it acted on legal advice that it was entitled to continue prospecting.

The appeal was dismissed with costs; the High Court’s dismissal of the contempt application was confirmed.

The case reaffirms the stringent standard of proof required in civil contempt proceedings, namely proof beyond reasonable doubt, including clear proof of wilfulness and mala fides. It underscores the need for precise, period-specific evidence when alleging non-compliance with court orders, particularly in complex regulatory contexts such as mining and environmental law.