Mining remains a deeply divisive issue in South Africa, with proponents highlighting economic benefits and critics emphasising environmental concerns. For landowners, the debate carries an added complexity: if a mining company begins operations on private property without consent, what legal rights do landowners possess?
According to Webber Wentzel, in 2012 the then Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy converted Zincede Ngokwakho Proprietary Limited’s (Zincede) old-order mining right for a 10-year period, thereby authorising the company to mine gravel on property owned by the Matatiele Local Municipality.
“Following various litigious disputes between the parties, Zincede and the Municipality entered into a settlement agreement and, in 2016, a subsequent lease agreement. The lease agreement was explicitly linked to the duration of the converted mining right, including any renewal period associated with such converted mining right,” explained Webber Wentzel.
The firm added that on 4 December 2020, Zincede ceded and transferred its converted mining right to Stonewell Quarry Proprietary Limited (Stonewell) in terms of section 11 of the MPRDA.
When Stonewell sought to renew the lease agreement in late 2022, the law firm pointed out that the Municipality refused, citing its intention to sell the property and asserting that the lease had terminated following the cession of the converted mining right.
It subsequently issued a 60-day notice for both Zincede and Stonewell to vacate, which the companies declined, precipitating the present legal dispute.
At first instance, the court ruled in favour of the Municipality. It declared that no valid lease agreement existed and that the mining right alone did not entitle Stonewell to remain on the property.
The court ordered the appellants to vacate the land and rehabilitate the site, holding that a valid lease was required for a mining right holder to occupy property for operations.
On appeal, the SCA identified key issues: whether a mining right allows access without a lease, whether the cession under section 11 of the MPRDA was valid without the landowner’s consent, and whether section 54 of the MPRDA, which governs compensation disputes, had been properly applied.
“In a judgment delivered by Judge Baartman, the SCA upheld the appeal by Zincede and Stonewell and set aside the court a quo’s order. The SCA’s reasoning focused on several legal principles. First, it emphasised the statutory rights of mining right holders under section 5(3) of the MPRDA, which unambiguously permits a mining right holder to enter the land, bring equipment, and conduct operations. This confirms common law principles, where a landowner must allow access to enable the effective exercise of the rights. The SCA made it clear that this matter differed from Maledu1, as mining had been conducted for almost ten years “with the Municipality’s concurrence”, explained Webber Wentzel.
The SCA further found that Zincede and Stonewell had complied with section 11(1) of the MPRDA, confirming that landowner consent was not required for the transfer of the mining right. Moreover, it reaffirmed that while awaiting renewal of the converted mining right, the right remained valid under section 24(5) of the MPRDA.
Moreover, Webber Wentzel highlighted that the SCA also clarified section 54 of the MPRDA, which governs compensation when parties cannot agree, was not applicable.
“The SCA emphasised that section 54 of the MPRDA is a compensation mechanism triggered only when a specific ‘overriding jurisdictional factor’ exists. The holder of a mining right must be prevented from commencing or conducting operations because the landowner refuses access or makes unreasonable demands. In this matter, Stonewell had been occupying and actively mining the property since December 2020, and access had not been denied. As such, the legal requirements to trigger the operation of section 54 of the MPRDA were not met,” added Webber Wentzel, noting that the court concluded a valid lease is not a prerequisite for a mining right holder to exercise statutory rights to access and mine land over which the right was granted.
The ruling sends a clear message about the balance between statutory mining rights and property ownership.
While landowners retain control over their land, the judgment confirms that mining operations authorised under the MPRDA carry their own legal weight, and access cannot be unreasonably obstructed.
PAID ADVERTISING
This clarity offers landowners and municipalities a firmer understanding of their legal position and the limits of their influence over mining activity.
The judgment also highlights the legal tension that can arise between landownership and resource extraction. While mining remains closely tied to economic activity and development, the SCA made it clear that rights granted under the MPRDA are not subordinate to a landowner’s preference where lawful authority to mine already exists.
In effect, the ruling offers clearer legal guidance on how such disputes should be approached when private property and statutory mining rights collide.
What are your thoughts on this? Let us know below.
What did the SCA ruling clarify about mining rights on private land?
The Supreme Court of Appeal clarified that a mining right holder may, in certain circumstances, access and conduct mining operations on land covered by the right without needing the landowner’s consent or a valid lease agreement, provided the right was lawfully granted under the MPRDA.
Can a landowner stop mining if they do not agree with it?
Not automatically. The ruling confirms that where a valid mining right exists, a landowner cannot simply block access if the law already authorises the mining activity. However, each dispute depends on its facts and the legal status of the mining right involved.
Is a lease agreement always required for a mining company to operate on private land?
According to the SCA ruling discussed in the article, a valid lease is not always a prerequisite for a mining right holder to exercise its statutory rights. The court found that the mining right itself can carry enforceable access rights under section 5(3) of the MPRDA
Does a mining right transfer require the landowner’s consent?
The SCA found that landowner consent was not required for the transfer of the mining right in this case. The court held that the parties had complied with section 11(1) of the MPRDA.
Newcastillian News invites your input. We ask that you keep your remarks courteous and on-topic. We do not allow any form of hate speech, such as racist or sexist comments. All comments are subject to moderation in line with our User Rules and Commenting Policy.
