CaseNotes LogoCaseNotes
  • Home
  • Library
  • Research
  • Discussion Hub
  • Wiki
  • Latin Dictionary
  • Question Bank
  • Settings
S

Student

Student Account

South African Law • Jurisdictional Corpus
HomeLibraryResearchQuestionsSettings
Judicial Precedent
Ask AI

Barberton Mines (Pty) Limited v Mpumalanga Tourism and Parks Agency and Others

CitationOrder dated 25 July 2017 (CCT)
JurisdictionZA
Area of Law
Constitutional LawMining and Mineral Resources Law
Free account

Get the most out of this judgment

Create a free CaseNotes account to save this case, see how it's cited, get an AI summary, and search 10,000+ SA judgments.

Create free accountor sign in
Administrative Law

Facts of the Case

Barberton Mines (Pty) Limited applied for leave to appeal to the Constitutional Court against an earlier decision. The application involved multiple respondents including the Mpumalanga Tourism and Parks Agency, Mountainlands Owners Association, and various officials and departments related to mineral resources. The specific factual background giving rise to the dispute is not detailed in this order, which is a brief leave to appeal decision.

Legal Issues

  • Whether the Constitutional Court should grant leave to appeal
  • Whether the application raised a constitutional matter or an issue of general public importance
  • Whether there were prospects of success for the appeal

Judicial Outcome

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi

The binding principle, to the extent applicable in this brief order, is that the Constitutional Court will dismiss applications for leave to appeal where they bear no prospects of success. However, as this is merely a leave to appeal decision without substantive reasoning on the merits, there is no significant ratio decidendi established.

Obiter Dicta

There are no obiter dicta in this judgment. The order is purely procedural, dismissing the application for leave to appeal without any additional commentary, observations, or reasoning beyond the conclusion that the application lacks prospects of success.

Legal Significance

This case has limited jurisprudential significance as it is a brief order dismissing leave to appeal without substantive engagement with the legal issues. It represents the Constitutional Court's gatekeeping function in determining which cases warrant full consideration by the apex court. The decision reinforces that applications must meet the threshold requirements of prospects of success before leave to appeal will be granted.

Explore More Cases

More Constitutional Law cases

  • (1) Petros Makaza (2) Golden Nhika v The State and (1) Khumbuzo Gumbo (2) Sydney Ndachengedzwa v The StateCCZ 16/17 (Const. Application No. CCZ 5/13 and Const. Application No. CCZ 102/13)
  • (1) Tungamirai Madzokere (2) Lazarus Maengahama (3) Stanford Maengahama (4) Phineous Nhatarikwa (5) Stanford Mangwiro (6) Yvonne Musarurwa (7) Rebecca Mafukeni v The StateSC 8/12; Civil Application No. 318/11
  • 68 Wolmarans Street Johannesburg (Pty) Ltd and Others v Tufh Limited(1263/2022) [2024] ZASCA 48 (15 April 2024)
  • AAA Investments (Proprietary) Limited v The Micro Finance Regulatory Council and Another2006 (11) BCLR 1255 (CC) (also reported as CCT 51/05)
  • Aaron Musiteyi v The StateHMT 2-21, B 09/21
  • Abahlali baseMjondolo Movement SA and Another v Premier of the Province of KwaZulu-Natal and Others

Practice This Case

Sign up to practise IRAC analysis, issue spotting, and argument building on this case.

(CCT 12/09) [2009] ZACC 31
  • AB and Another v Minister of Social Development[2016] ZACC 43
  • AB and Another v Pridwin Preparatory School and Others[2020] ZACC 12
  • More South Africa cases

    • 3M South Africa (Pty) Ltd v The Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service(272/09) [2010] ZASCA 20 (23 March 2010)
    • 4 Seasons Logistics CC v Kgotse(1215/2023) [2026] ZASCA 09 (04 February 2026)
    • 4 Seasons Logistics CC v Nicholas Ngwanammoto Kgotse(1215/2023) [2026] ZASCA 09 (4 February 2026)
    • 4-Tune Investments (Pty) Ltd v Kingsgate Body CorporateCSOS 4565/WC/22 (Adjudication Order, 29 November 2023)
    • 68 Wolmarans Street Johannesburg (Pty) Ltd and Others v Tufh Limited(1263/2022) [2024] ZASCA 48 (15 April 2024)
    • 9 on Rydal Vale Court Body Corporate v Pan African Holdings Pty LtdCSOS-4563/KZN/23 (Adjudication Order, 8 November 2023)
    • AAA Investments (Proprietary) Limited v The Micro Finance Regulatory Council and Another2006 (11) BCLR 1255 (CC) (also reported as CCT 51/05)
    • A A Alloy Foundry (Pty) Limited v Titaco Projects (Pty) LimitedCase No. 309/97