Transasia 444 (Pty) Ltd v The Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy and Others; Transasia Minerals (SA) (Pty) Ltd v The Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy and Others

Transasia 444 (Pty) Ltd and Transasia Minerals (SA) (Pty) Ltd were involved in a long-standing dispute with Umsobomvu Coal (Pty) Ltd concerning the transfer of mineral rights under s 11 of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act 28 of 2002 (MPRDA). Despite Umsobomvu’s opposition, the Minister granted consent for the transfer of the mineral rights to Transasia 444. Umsobomvu lodged an internal appeal under s 96 of the MPRDA and obtained a High Court order compelling the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy to disclose the full record of decision. That disclosure order was granted in the absence of Transasia 444 and Transasia Minerals, notwithstanding that they owned or had interests in confidential documents forming part of the record. Transasia 444 applied for rescission of the disclosure order under rule 42(1)(a) of the Uniform Rules of Court on the basis of non-joinder. Instead of granting or refusing rescission, the High Court (Millar J) issued an order supplementing the disclosure order with a confidentiality regime. Transasia 444 and Transasia Minerals appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

Both appeals succeeded. The order of Millar J dated 29 August 2022 was set aside and substituted. The default disclosure order granted by Mngqibisa-Thusi J was rescinded. Transasia 444 and Transasia Minerals were granted leave to be joined and to oppose the disclosure application, with time periods provided for filing answering affidavits. Umsobomvu Coal (Pty) Ltd was ordered to pay the costs of the rescission applications and the appeals, including costs of applications for leave to appeal.

The judgment reinforces the principle that parties with a direct and substantial interest must be joined in proceedings affecting their rights, particularly in applications compelling disclosure of confidential material in administrative appeals. It clarifies the proper application of rule 42(1)(a) and confirms that a court hearing a rescission application may not reformulate or supplement an existing order instead of deciding whether rescission should be granted or refused. The case is significant for procedural fairness in MPRDA appeals and disclosure disputes.