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

Dengetenge Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Southern Sphere Mining and Development Company Limited & others

Citation(619/12) [2013] ZASCA 5 (11 March 2013)
JurisdictionZA
Area of Law
Civil ProcedureMining and Mineral 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

The case concerned a dispute over prospecting rights for platinum group metals in the Limpopo Province involving properties Boschkloof 331 KT and Mooimeisjesfontein 363 KT. The properties had previously vested in the Lebowa Mineral Trust (LMT) which entered into prospecting agreements with Southern Sphere and Rhodium. After the MPRDA came into effect, Rhodium obtained a court order directing the Minister to grant it prospecting rights. Southern Sphere applied for and was granted prospecting rights over the same properties in 2006. Dengetenge also applied for and was granted prospecting rights over portions of the same properties in 2006. The Minister subsequently withdrew Southern Sphere's rights insofar as they overlapped with Rhodium's court-ordered rights. Southern Sphere then launched a review application to set aside Dengetenge's prospecting rights, which the High Court granted. Dengetenge sought to appeal but its appeal lapsed when it failed to file heads of argument within the prescribed time. After a delay of several months, Dengetenge brought an application for condonation to revive the appeal.

Legal Issues

  • Whether condonation should be granted for failure to prosecute an appeal by timeously filing heads of argument
  • What factors should be considered in an application for condonation where an appeal has lapsed
  • Whether an appellant can advance on appeal a case specifically abandoned before the court below
  • Whether a court order must be obeyed even if parties believe it may be wrong, until set aside by a competent court

Judicial Outcome

The application for condonation was dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel. Dengetenge was also ordered to pay the costs incurred by the respondents in opposing the lapsed appeal, including costs of two counsel.

Ratio Decidendi

In applications for condonation where an appeal has lapsed due to non-compliance with court rules, the court must consider cumulatively: (1) the degree of non-compliance; (2) the explanation for the delay; (3) the importance of the case; (4) the respondent's interest in finality; (5) the convenience of the court; and (6) avoidance of delay in the administration of justice. Where multiple factors weigh against condonation, particularly inadequate explanation for delay, prejudice to respondents, and poor prospects of success, condonation will be refused. An appellant cannot on appeal seek to advance a case that was specifically abandoned before the court below. Court orders must be obeyed even if considered to be wrong until set aside by a court of competent jurisdiction - respect for court authority is foundational to the rule of law.

Obiter Dicta

The Court observed that given the flagrant breach of the rules coupled with failure to advance an acceptable explanation and evident prejudice to respondents, it may have been entitled to refuse condonation irrespective of the merits of the appeal, citing Blumenthal v Thomson. Ponnan JA noted that the proposition that a High Court is obliged mero motu to go behind counsel's clear concession to determine whether it was correctly made 'merely has to be stated to be rejected' as it finds no support in South African law. The Court emphasized that respect for the authority of courts 'often serves as the bulwark against anarchy and chaos.'

Legal Significance

This case reinforces the principles governing condonation applications in South African law, particularly where appeals have lapsed due to non-compliance with court rules. It emphasizes that condonation is not granted merely for the asking and requires full, detailed and accurate explanation of delays. The judgment reinforces the cumulative approach to considering condonation factors - where multiple factors weigh against condonation, the cumulative effect is decisive. The case also affirms fundamental principles of the rule of law: that court orders must be obeyed until set aside by a competent court, and that parties cannot disregard interdicts even if they believe them to be wrong. It confirms that concessions made by counsel in the court below cannot be resiled from on appeal without the abandoned case being advanced anew.

Case relationship graph

Case Network

Explore 16 related cases • Click to navigate

Current Case
Related Case

Cases Cited in This Judgment

  • Uitenhage Transitional Local Council v The South African Revenue ServiceCase no: 11/2003
    Applies

    Applied the principle requiring full, detailed and accurate account of the causes of delay in condonation applications.

Cited By 36 Cases

  • AB Xuma Local Municipality and Another v Kunogqala Local Residents and OthersCase No.: 4146/2023 (Eastern Cape Division, Mthatha)
    Cites

    The court cites this case as also approving the dictum from Ex Parte Daly that context is everything in law.

  • Aquila Steel (South Africa) (Pty) Limited v Minister of Mineral Resources and Others[2018] ZACC 5
    Cites

    Cited for the proposition that this Court's exposition on permitting rectification of deficiencies in applications without censure occurred without ruling on…

  • Ashley Brooks and Charlene Sybil Brooks v National Director of Public Prosecutions(855/16) [2017] ZASCA 42 (30 March 2017)
    Cites

    Cited on the general principle of condonation for late filing when there is no prejudice.

  • Christian John Adams and Others v Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy and OthersCase No: 1306/22 (Western Cape Division, Cape Town)
    Applies

    The court applies the principle that an obligation to consult demands that the person entitled to be consulted be afforded an adequate opportunity to exercise…

Practice This Case

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

  • De Beers Consolidated Mines (Pty) Ltd v Regional Manager, Limpopo: The Department of Mineral Resources and Energy and Others(458/2024) [2025] ZASCA 128 (10 September 2025)
    Cites

    The court cites this case for the principle that the duty to exhaust internal remedies defers the exercise of the court's review jurisdiction until the duty is…

  • Dengetenge Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Southern Sphere Mining and Development Company Ltd and Others(CCT 39/13) [2013] ZACC 48
    Appeal From

    This is the judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeal dismissing Dengetenge's application for condonation and reinstatement of the appeal; the appeal was…

  • Director of Public Prosecutions, Gauteng Division, Pretoria v Benbelkacem(831/16) [2017] ZASCA 52 (8 May 2017)
    Cites

    Cited for the legal principles applicable in considering an application for condonation, including factors such as degree of non-compliance, explanation,…

  • Dr Di Mtshali NO and others v Buffalo Conservation 97 (Pty) Ltd(250/2017) [2017] ZASCA 127 (29 September 2017)
    Cites

    Court cites Dengetenge Holdings to outline factors relevant to discretion on granting condonation, including degree of non-compliance, explanation, importance…

  • Eamonn Courtney v Izak Johannes Boshoff NO & Others(483/2023) [2024] ZASCA 104 (21 June 2024)
    Applies

    Applied for the proposition that even an incorrect judicial order exists in fact and may have legal consequences until a court sets it aside.

  • Express Model Trading 289 CC v Dolphin Ridge Body Corporate(656/2013) [2014] ZASCA 17 (26 March 2014)
    Follows

    Cited for the factors that typically guide the court when considering an application for condonation, including degree of non-compliance, explanation,…

  • Grace Masuku and Others v Minister of Mineral Resources and OthersCase No: 25764/2019, [2022] ZAGPPHC (10 March 2022)
    Applies

    Court applies the principle that the rationality standard prescribes the lowest possible threshold.

  • Investec Bank Limited v Erf 436 Elandspoort (Pty) Limited & Others(1029/2016) [2017] ZASCA 128
    Cites

    Cited in support of the principle that interpretation should not result in an absurdity and must accord with purposive and contextualised statutory…

  • Lieutenant Colonel KB O'Brien NO v The Minister of Defence and Military Veterans and Others(1271/2021) [2022] ZASCA 178
    Cites

    Cited with approval for the principle established in Bezuidenhout v Patensie Sitrus Beherend BPK that a court order stands until set aside.

  • Loch Logan Waterfront (Pty) Limited and The Trustees of the N Georgiou Trust v Bentel Associates International (Pty) Limited(147/2015) [2017] ZASCA 135 (29 September 2017)
    Applies

    Court applies the factors set out by Ponnan JA governing the discretion to grant or refuse condonation, including the degree of non-compliance, explanation,…

  • Mathibela v The State(714/2017) [2017] ZASCA 162
    Cites

    Court cites this case as further authority regarding the requirement for detailed explanation of delay in condonation applications.

  • Member of the Executive Council for Local Government, Environmental Affairs and Development Planning, Western Cape & another v Hans Ulrich Plotz NO & another(495/2017) [2017] ZASCA 175 (1 December 2017)
    Applies

    The court applies Dengetenge Holdings to explain that s 7(2)(c) of PAJA requires an application for exemption from exhausting internal remedies and requires…

  • Meshack Mapholisa N O v Adv K I A Phetoe N O and Others(163/2021) [2022] ZASCA 168 (30 November 2022)
    Cites

    Court cites Dengetenge for the common law rule that the aggrieved party may choose to pursue internal remedies or proceed straight to court to seek review…

  • Miles Plant Hire (Pty) Ltd v The Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service(20430/2014) [2015] ZASCA 98 (1 June 2015)
    Cites

    Cited to explain the principle that when a party abandons its opposition to an application and confines its argument to a question of law, it is effectively no…

  • Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment & Others v Badenhorst N.O. & Others(1004/2023) [2025] ZASCA 68 (28 May 2025)
    Cites

    Cited for the proposition that an exemption is granted by a court on application by the aggrieved party and that a court is precluded from reviewing challenged…

  • Minister of Home Affairs & others v Somali Association of South Africa Eastern Cape (SASA EC) & another(831/13) [2015] ZASCA 35 (25 March 2015)
    Cites

    The court cites this case for the principle that an order of a court of law stands until set aside by a court of competent jurisdiction and must be obeyed even…

  • Muller v Sanlam Life Insurance Limited(1162/2015) [2016] ZASCA 149 (30 September 2016)
    Cites

    Cited for factors that weigh with the court in considering an application for condonation, including the degree of non-compliance, explanation, importance of…

  • Noxolo Maru and Others v MEC for Transport and Community Safety Eastern Cape and OthersCase No: 272/2024 (Eastern Cape Division – Bhisho)
    Cites

    Cited at paragraph 21 for the principle that the doctrine of legality is an aspect of the rule of law governing the exercise of all public power.

  • Olesitse NO v Minister of Police(470/2021) [2022] ZASCA 90 (15 June 2022)
    Cites

    Cited for the factors a court considers when exercising discretion whether to grant condonation for non-compliance with procedural rules.

  • Pan African Mineral Development Company (Pty) Ltd & others v Aquila Steel (S Africa) (Pty) Ltd(179/2017) [2017] ZASCA 165 (29 November 2017)
    Cites

    Cited for the proposition that the DMR allows applicants to supplement their applications.

  • Pine Glow Investments (Pty) Ltd v The Minister of Energy and Others(1264/2023) [2025] ZASCA 75 (2 June 2025)
    Applies

    Applied for the explanation of the duty to exhaust internal remedies and the circumstances in which exemption may be granted.

  • Ricardo Walters v Buffalo City Metropolitan MunicipalityCase No: EL516/2025 (Eastern Cape Division, East London Circuit Court)
    Cites

    Cited in support of the principle that context is everything in interpretation.

  • Sayed v The State(530/2017) [2017] ZASCA 156 (24 November 2017)
    Follows

    Applied to set out the factors considered by a court when exercising discretion whether to grant condonation.

  • Silverback Technologies CC & Others v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service(301/2022) [2023] ZASCA 128 (09 October 2023)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that legislation must be interpreted purposively.

  • Simon Lindsay Draycott v Max Hurbert Bega and Others(69/2024) [2025] ZASCA 123 (2 September 2025)
    Applies

    Court applied the principle that an appeal which has lapsed due to non-compliance with court rules can only be revived through an application for condonation.

  • Simvumile Mambafula v Alfred Nzo District MunicipalityCase No: 2715/2024 (High Court of South Africa, Eastern Cape Division - Mthatha)
    Applies

    Applied for the principle that both the process and the decision must be rational, and that a failure to consider relevant factors can render a decision…

  • Sinenkani Football Club v South African Football Association and OthersCase No: 1461/2025 (Eastern Cape Division, Mthatha)
    Cites

    Court cites the case for the principle that joinder of a party is only required as a matter of necessity if that party has a direct and substantial interest…

  • The Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service v Candice-Jean van der Merwe(20152/2014) [2015] ZASCA 86 (28 May 2015)
    Cites

    Cited for the factors that usually weigh with the court in considering an application for condonation, including degree of non-compliance, explanation…

  • Thembakazi Ntangazana v Member of the Executive Council for the Department of Education, Eastern Cape(390/2023) [2025] ZASCA 160 (23 October 2025)
    Cites

    Cited for the well-established requirements for condonation and reinstatement.

  • Umfolozi Sugar Planters Limited v Isimangaliso Wetland Park Authority(873/2017) [2018] ZASCA 144 (1 October 2018)
    Applies

    Applied for the principle that a party cannot on appeal seek to advance a case specifically abandoned in the court below.

  • Wakkerstroom Natural Heritage Association v Dr Pixley Ka Isaka Local MunicipalityCase No: 1765/19, High Court of South Africa, Mpumalanga Division, Middelburg (Local Seat)
    Applies

    Applied for the rationality test in review: that means must be rationally related to the purpose for which the power was conferred, and both the process and…

  • Whitehead and Another v Trustees of the Insolvent Estate of Dennis Charles Riekert and Others(567/2019) [2020] ZASCA 124
    Follows

    Court follows the principle that an order of a court of law stands until set aside by a court of competent jurisdiction, as quoted in Minister of Home Affairs