Samancor Chrome Limited was granted a prospecting right on 11 December 2017 over chrome minerals in certain portions of farm Tweelaagte 175 JP in the North West province, valid until December 2022. The prospecting right was notarially executed and registered in 2018. In June 2018, Samancor discovered that North West Chrome Mining and Monageng Family Mining Services were conducting mining activities within Samancor's prospecting area. Respondents relied on three mining permits issued to Monageng in 2010, each limited to 1.5 hectares on portion 3 of the farm. An aerial mapping survey confirmed that respondents' mining activities were occurring in Samancor's prospecting area, and that the areas covered by the mining permits did not overlap with the prospecting area. Samancor also discovered an error in the description of its prospecting right - it referenced portions 7, 8 and 9 of the farm which had never been formally subdivided. Despite this misdescription, the prospecting area was clearly delineated in an annexed plan (Annexure B) with coordinates. After attempts to resolve the matter amicably failed, Samancor brought an urgent application for an interdict to restrain the respondents from conducting mining activities in its prospecting area.
The appeal was upheld with costs. The order of the high court was set aside and replaced with an order: (1) interdicting the first and second respondents from conducting mining activities on, removing material from, or entering Samancor's prospecting area without consent, and from preventing Samancor from accessing the area; (2) directing respondents to vacate the prospecting area with their employees, contractors, equipment and machinery within 15 days; (3) directing the Sheriff with police assistance if necessary to enforce the interdict by preventing entry, preventing vehicles suspected of unlawful removal of material from entering or exiting, and removing equipment used for unlawful mining; and (4) ordering the respondents to pay costs. The application for leave to introduce further evidence was refused with costs.
A prospecting right lawfully granted under the MPRDA remains valid and enforceable until set aside by a competent court. A partial misdescription in the text of a prospecting right does not invalidate the right where the prospecting area is clearly identifiable from the coordinates and boundaries depicted in the plan annexed to the right. In interdict proceedings to restrain unlawful mining activities within a prospecting area, the court's function is not to conduct a review of the decision to grant the prospecting right. The Minister of Mineral Resources need not be joined in private enforcement proceedings seeking an interdict against unlawful mining, as the Minister has no direct legal interest in such disputes between private parties. Section 47 of the MPRDA, which provides for ministerial cancellation or suspension of mineral rights, does not constitute an internal remedy that must be exhausted before approaching a court, and does not preclude a holder of a prospecting right from seeking interdictory relief against unlawful mining activities. Where a party holds a valid prospecting right and can demonstrate that another party is conducting unlawful mining activities within the prospecting area, the requirements for an interdict are satisfied.
The Court noted that it is undesirable for courts to readily allow new evidence on appeal in circumstances where an applicant has deliberately chosen a particular course for conducting its case. While Samancor's rectification of its prospecting right through endorsement during 2019 post-dated the original application, this did not constitute exceptional circumstances warranting reception of further evidence, particularly where Samancor had acknowledged in its founding papers that the relief sought was not dependent on rectification of the error. The Court also observed that there were two mutually inconsistent judgments from the same Division of the High Court dealing with the same facts and involving the same parties (the judgments of Leeuw JP and Hendricks DJP), which could lead to confusion, providing an additional reason why the matter was not moot despite the later favorable judgment.
This case clarifies important principles regarding enforcement of prospecting rights under the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act 28 of 2002 (MPRDA). It establishes that: (1) a prospecting right lawfully granted remains valid until set aside by a court, even if there are irregularities or errors in its description; (2) where the coordinates and boundaries of a prospecting area are clearly delineated in an annexed plan, a misdescription in the text does not render the right unclear or invalid; (3) courts should not question the validity of mineral rights in interdict proceedings unless properly brought for review; (4) the Minister need not be joined in private enforcement proceedings regarding unlawful mining activities; (5) section 47 MPRDA processes for cancellation of rights do not preclude private parties from seeking interdictory relief in the courts; and (6) holders of prospecting rights are entitled to interdict unlawful mining activities in their prospecting areas even where mining permits exist, if those permits cover different areas or have lapsed. The case reinforces the protection of validly granted mineral rights and the availability of urgent interdictory relief against illegal mining operations.