Sand Hawks (Pty) Ltd and Another v Labonte 5 (Pty) Ltd and Others

Labonte 5 (Pty) Ltd applied in July 2010 for mining rights under s 22 of the MPRDA over various farms, including portions of Ehrenbreitstein and Wonderboomhoek in Limpopo. The Regional Manager (RM) partially accepted the application, excluding those properties due to an erroneous belief that a third party held conflicting rights. Subsequently, Sand Hawks lodged mining applications over the same properties, which were accepted. After correspondence and a second application by Labonte, the RM corrected his earlier error and accepted Labonte’s application including the properties, and mining rights were granted to Labonte in March 2017. Over a year later, Sand Hawks lodged an internal appeal to the Director-General (DG) challenging both the RM’s correction and the grant of mining rights, without a substantive condonation application. The DG condoned the late appeal, held the RM functus officio, and amended Labonte’s mining right to exclude the properties. Labonte successfully reviewed this decision in the High Court. Sand Hawks appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal was dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel. The High Court’s order reviewing and setting aside the Director-General’s decision and remitting the internal appeals for proper determination remained intact.

The case clarifies the nature of a Regional Manager’s powers under the MPRDA, confirming that acceptance of a mining application is a preliminary administrative step and does not render the Regional Manager functus officio. It also reinforces strict standards for condonation and internal appeals under s 96 of the MPRDA, affirming that administrative decision-makers must properly apply their minds in accordance with PAJA and established legality principles.