De Beers Consolidated Mines (Pty) Ltd v Regional Manager, Limpopo: The Department of Mineral Resources and Energy and Others

De Beers Consolidated Mines (Pty) Ltd (DBCM) operated an open-cast diamond mine in Limpopo from 1998 to 2008. In November 2009 it submitted a mine closure application under the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act 28 of 2002 (MPRDA). Over many years the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy insisted that the closure plan include backfilling of the mining pit, which DBCM disputed on the basis that this was not required by its approved Environmental Management Programme. In June 2020 the Regional Manager indicated that the closure application would remain pending until a revised closure plan providing for backfilling was submitted. DBCM lodged an internal appeal under s 96 of the MPRDA but, before it was decided, instituted review proceedings in the High Court under PAJA, seeking exemption from exhausting internal remedies and substantive relief. The High Court refused the exemption but nonetheless decided a substantive legal issue and issued a directive binding the Minister when deciding the internal appeal. DBCM appealed that directive to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal was upheld with costs. Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the High Court’s order were set aside and replaced with an order directing DBCM to exhaust the internal remedies under s 96 of the MPRDA, and referring the matter back to the Minister to decide the internal appeal within specified timeframes, without any directive on the merits.

The judgment clarifies and reinforces the strict operation of s 7(2) of PAJA, confirming that courts may not partially engage review jurisdiction after refusing exemption from internal remedies. It underscores the constitutional principle of legality and the limits of judicial power in administrative-law review, providing important guidance on the sequencing of internal remedies and judicial oversight.