Publications
Partners
Johannesburg - Agri SA expressed disappointment after the Constitutional Court denied its appeal to dismiss a mineral rights ruling by the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) on Thursday.
The commercial farmers' union had claimed for damages over alleged expropriation of mineral rights which the SCA set aside.
“The ruling of the court was not what we expected," Agri SA president Johannes Mller said in a statement.
He said that the organisation's perspective of the expropriation of mineral rights was different to that of the Constitutional Court.
Miller, however, added that the verdict was respected.
He also said that Agri SA will continue to fight for the rights of mineral rights holders who were in a different position to the case of Sebenza.
Recourse
"We will now embark on a process to study the judgment in detail to determine what recourse is available to mineral right holders in circumstances different from the specifics of the Sebenza case."
In a joint statement, AfriForum and AfriSake said they too intended studying the ruling to determine its impact on ownership rights.
"They will also determine to what extent today's ruling is applicable to other forms of ownership," spokesperson Cornelius Jansen van Rensburg said in a statement.
AfriForum and AfriSake joined the case as friends of the court.
In a majority judgment on Thursday, written by Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng, the Constitutional Court held while the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act (MPRDA) deprived Sebenza of its coal rights, the deprivation did not rise to the level of expropriation at the time of the act's commencement.
According to the judgment, the conclusion was supported by traditional arrangements which protected pre-existing mineral rights and improved security of tenure.
MPRDA argument
Agri SA's application was heard on November 8 last year.
It argued the MPRDA abolished the concept of privately-held mineral rights.
The act, promulgated in 2004, requires owners of old-order rights to apply to have them converted into new rights.
It vests ownership of mining rights in the state. Agri SA believes this is expropriation and wants R2m compensation.
Shortly after the commencement of the act, Agri SA acquired by cession a claim for compensation from mining company Sebenza. The then minister of minerals and energy rejected the claim.
The North Gauteng High Court in Pretoria ruled in favour of Agri SA and awarded it R750 000 compensation.
The SCA set the ruling aside and held the act did not deprive Sebenza of property, and therefore did not amount to expropriation, and no compensation needed to be paid.
The commercial farmers' union had claimed for damages over alleged expropriation of mineral rights which the SCA set aside.
“The ruling of the court was not what we expected," Agri SA president Johannes Mller said in a statement.
He said that the organisation's perspective of the expropriation of mineral rights was different to that of the Constitutional Court.
Miller, however, added that the verdict was respected.
He also said that Agri SA will continue to fight for the rights of mineral rights holders who were in a different position to the case of Sebenza.
Recourse
"We will now embark on a process to study the judgment in detail to determine what recourse is available to mineral right holders in circumstances different from the specifics of the Sebenza case."
In a joint statement, AfriForum and AfriSake said they too intended studying the ruling to determine its impact on ownership rights.
"They will also determine to what extent today's ruling is applicable to other forms of ownership," spokesperson Cornelius Jansen van Rensburg said in a statement.
AfriForum and AfriSake joined the case as friends of the court.
In a majority judgment on Thursday, written by Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng, the Constitutional Court held while the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act (MPRDA) deprived Sebenza of its coal rights, the deprivation did not rise to the level of expropriation at the time of the act's commencement.
According to the judgment, the conclusion was supported by traditional arrangements which protected pre-existing mineral rights and improved security of tenure.
MPRDA argument
Agri SA's application was heard on November 8 last year.
It argued the MPRDA abolished the concept of privately-held mineral rights.
The act, promulgated in 2004, requires owners of old-order rights to apply to have them converted into new rights.
It vests ownership of mining rights in the state. Agri SA believes this is expropriation and wants R2m compensation.
Shortly after the commencement of the act, Agri SA acquired by cession a claim for compensation from mining company Sebenza. The then minister of minerals and energy rejected the claim.
The North Gauteng High Court in Pretoria ruled in favour of Agri SA and awarded it R750 000 compensation.
The SCA set the ruling aside and held the act did not deprive Sebenza of property, and therefore did not amount to expropriation, and no compensation needed to be paid.
