SA Soutwerke (Pty) Ltd v Saamwerk Soutwerke (Pty) Ltd and Others

The dispute concerned competing claims to mine salt on the state-owned property Vrysoutpan in the Northern Cape. Saamwerk Soutwerke (Pty) Ltd applied in July 2005 for a mining right under s 22 of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act 28 of 2002 (MPRDA). The Regional Manager accepted the application, as no valid mining right or permit existed over the property at the time. SA Soutwerke (Pty) Ltd (SA Salt), which had historically mined salt on the property, claimed to hold an ‘old order’ mining permit (MP 169/2004) allegedly issued under the repealed Minerals Act 50 of 1991. Evidence later showed this permit was forged and invalid; the only valid permit SA Salt ever held (MP 169/2003) had expired in April 2005. Despite this, SA Salt continued mining and objected to Saamwerk’s application, alleging, inter alia, that Saamwerk failed to consult it as an occupier. The High Court declared Saamwerk the holder of the mining right, deemed the environmental management programme approved, and declared MP 169/2004 invalid. SA Salt appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal primarily on the ground that Saamwerk failed to consult it under s 22(4) of the MPRDA.

The appeal was dismissed with costs. The order of the Northern Cape High Court declaring Saamwerk the holder of the mining right, deeming the environmental management programme approved, and declaring permit MP 169/2004 invalid remained intact.

The case clarifies that only lawful occupiers or genuinely interested and affected parties are entitled to consultation under s 22(4) of the MPRDA. It affirms that parties relying on invalid or illegally issued mining permits cannot assert procedural rights, such as consultation, to obstruct lawful mining applications. The judgment reinforces the integrity of the MPRDA’s regulatory scheme and discourages reliance on forged or unlawful administrative acts.