The court made several non-binding observations: (1) While not necessary to decide, the court indicated there was substantial merit in the argument that Dilokong's right had been abandoned due to its failure to take steps to enforce the right. (2) The court noted that the appropriate course of action for Dilokong, believing the BEE condition was unlawfully imposed, would have been to seek a mandamus compelling the DMR to execute the right (assuming it was lawfully granted), rather than remaining supine. Administrative decisions remain valid until set aside by a court (citing Oudekraal Estates). (3) The court observed that the discrepancy between the DDG's approval (four years) and the unsigned draft notarial deed (three years) regarding duration was immaterial, since the right would have lapsed even taking the longer four-year period. (4) The court noted the distinction between when a right is granted, when it must be registered (within 60 days under section 19(2)(a)), and when it becomes effective (upon approval of the environmental management plan under section 17(5)). (5) The court commented that while section 5(1) of the MPRDA provides a prospecting right is a limited real right, and section 2(4) of the Mining Titles Registration Act provides registration constitutes a limited real right binding on third parties, these provisions appear contradictory but the issue need not be resolved - the court accepted the right becomes a limited real right only upon registration. (6) The court emphasized that the objects in section 2(d) are of cardinal importance given the MPRDA's purpose of redressing historical inequalities in the mining industry, as stressed in Constitutional Court jurisprudence (Bengwenyama, Agri SA, Sishen Iron Ore).