[miningmx.com] — THE state indicated on Friday it would appeal a judgment by the North Gauteng High Court, which ruled that a holder of a deprived and expropriated old order mineral rights was entitled to compensation.
This came after the court had delivered a landmark judgment on the merits of a compensation claim against the minister of mineral resources.
The court found that the Mineral Resources and Petroleum Development Act (MPRDA) had deprived and expropriated the holder of an old order coal right of its property when the MPRDA was enacted on May 1 2004.
“We are still studying the judgment and deliberating how to respond, but I can assure you we will definitely appeal,’ director general of the department of mineral resources (DMR) Sandile Nogxina said on Friday.
Mining legal expert Warren Beech of law firm Webber Wentzel agreed that the case would probably only be settled once the Constitutional Court made a ruling on the matter.
“It is firmly a constitutional issue,’ he said. “I also don’t think that government would sit back on this as the ruling will have a knock-on effect on other issues as well.’
He said the principle applied by Judge J du Plessis on the issue of mineral rights would also be relevant on other matters such as water rights.
Beech was also doubtful over whether the ruling would lead to a flood of claims against the state. “The bigger miners would probably sit back to wait and see how the process ends,’ he said, adding it was unlikely that established miners would take the risk of upsetting the DMR – especially those whose applications for new order rights were still being processed – before certainty has been reached.
He said at this stage it was more likely for farmers and smaller trusts to give notification of their claims.
As part of its defence in court, witnesses for the state testified that if compensation had to be paid to all holders of mineral rights, it would cost about R90bn.
Du Plessis, however, rejected this testimony. “Both these witnesses had to concede in cross-examination that this figure is far from accurate and in reality has no foundation in fact,’ he said.
Agri SA president Johannes Moller said a law firm which offered to administer claims on behalf of farmers has already received “a few hundred’ applications.
Some farmers could also have chosen to submit a claim themselves at a provincial DMR office.
“For us, the case was not only about mineral rights but also to get clarity on other issues, such as how section 25 of the constitution should be interpreted.’ This clause deals with the expropriation of property in general.
