8 March 2015
The fact sheets below relate to pending or “live” legal challenges in which no ruling had been made at the time of compilation, and selected to form part of the Mining and Environment Litigation Review.
- ANGLOPLATINUM BLINKWATER (SEKURUWE): North Gauteng High Court
- ANKER COAL STEENKOOLSPRUIT: Regional Court Ermelo Mpumalanga
- BENICON MINE BANKFONTEIN: Administrative Appeal, MEC Mpumalanga
- BHP BILLITON/OPTIMUM COAL MINE SCHOONOORD: Pending Administrative Appeal (MPRDA)
- BRIGHT COAL COMMISIEKRAAL: Pending administrative appeal (MPRDA)
- EYESIZWE COAL PAARDEPLAATS: Pending administrative appeal (MPRDA)
- EYESIZWE COAL ZOEKOP BLYVOORUITZICHT: North Gauteng High Court (former TPD), RMDEC
- GOLFVIEW MINING LELIESFONTEIN: Criminal Prosecution, Regional Magistrates’ Court Ermelo Mpumalanga
- KHULILE MINES (PTY) FARM WITKRANZ: Pending administrative appeal (MPRDA)
- LIMPOPO COAL COMPANY MAPUNGUBWE: Pending administrative appeal (MPRDA); interdict proceedings in South Gauteng High Court; appeal against s 24G authorizations in terms of NEMA; appeal to Water Tribunal
- MASHALA RESOURCES FERREIRA MINE ERMELO: Pending administrative appeal (MPRDA), objection re WUL (NWA), pending court case dealing with access to road and spoliation
- MINE WASTE SOLUTIONS STILFONTEIN: Administrative Appeal (NEMA), Water Tribunal
- TRANSWORLD ENERGY AND MINERALS RESOURCES XOLOBENI: Interim decision on internal admin appeal
- TROLLOPE MINING SERVICES ELANDSKLOOF: Pending Administrative Appeal (MPRDA)
- UMCEBO KLIPPAN: Administrative Appeal in terms of MPRDA, EMPR amendment, WUL application, EIA appeal
- XSTRATA VERKEERDEPAN WITRAND JAGLUST: Pending Administrative Appeal (MPRDA)
Limitations and disclaimer
The Mining and Environment Litigation Review of which these fact sheets form part was prepared with the following limitations:
- Subject of the litigation: The primary focus of the project is litigation pertaining to rights and obligations related to carrying out prospecting, exploration or mining activities, with a particular focus on assessing and mitigating impact on the environment and interested and affected parties.
- Time: The outcomes of this project reflects the status quo as at July 2011. As mentioned above, we ask that practitioners, litigants, students and academics who become aware of any new cases or the completion of any pending cases notify us at email@example.com so that we can update the database accordingly.
- Forum: The Inventory covers litigation initiated or completed in the High Courts, the Supreme Court of Appeal and the Constitutional Court, as well as appeals to and rulings by the Water Tribunal and other administrative appeal bodies.
- Form of legal authority: The project is not limited to litigation relating to the interpretation of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act, 2002 (MPRDA) but can cover litigation based on the authority of any environment-related statute or the common law.
The Centre for Environmental Rights commissioned and the Wits School of Law carried out this project in an attempt to collate information on jurisprudential trends in finalised cases, and arguments put forward by appellants and respondents in pending or “live” cases. In relation to the latter, the summaries and report may contain and repeat allegations made by parties which are disputed by other parties, and in relation to which no finding has been made.
For queries, contact the Centre on firstname.lastname@example.org, or Prof Tracy Humby, School of Law, University of the Witwatersrand at Tracy-Lynn.Field@wits.ac.za.