Afrimat’s Demaneng mine is reaching the end of its productive life and will cease operations by the end of this year or in early 2027.
Image: Supplied
The North Gauteng High Court in Pretoria has dismissed an application by Lungile Mlotshwa for leave to appeal a judgment that cleared the way for the transfer of a mining right to Afrimat Iron Ore, dealing another legal setback in a closely watched dispute over mining rights and ownership interests.
Mlotshwa was the wife in community of property of the late BN Mhlangu, a 34% shareholder in Ochre Shimmer, whose mining right had been acquired by Afrimat on 30 May 2025.
Afrimat presently conducts mining operations in the Northern Cape and operates mines from which iron ore is extracted, including at Demaneng, Jenkins and Driehoekspan. Besides selling it locally, Afrimat also exports the iron ore it mines.
However, Afrimat’s Demaneng mine is reaching the end of its productive life and will cease operations by the end of this year or in early 2027.
Afrimat currently has an allocation of 870 000 tons which expires at the end of March 2027. To apply for the same allocation (or an increased allocation), it was necessary for Afrimat to demonstrate that it can meet that capacity (or the increased capacity).
In a judgment handed down on Wednesday, Judge Anthony Millar ruled that Mlotshwa had failed to demonstrate that another court would likely reach a different conclusion or that there were compelling reasons to grant leave to appeal. The court also ordered her to pay Afrimat’s legal costs, including the costs of two counsel, one of whom was a senior advocate.
The latest ruling follows an earlier judgment delivered last month, in which the court reviewed and set aside the failure by the Department of Minerals and Petroleum Resources to decide on the transfer of a mining right.
The court subsequently granted consequential relief, including ordering consent and the cession of the mining right in favour of Afrimat, which was the applicant in the main proceedings.
Mlotshwa’s application for leave to appeal centred on two primary arguments.
The first related to the interpretation of Section 11(1) of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act (MPRDA), which governs the transfer and cession of mining rights. She argued that the term “interest” in a mining right should be interpreted broadly, extending beyond registered holders of mining rights to include shareholders and others with interests linked to companies that hold such rights.
According to the judgment, Mlotshwa contended that the legislation contemplated a wider understanding of an interest in a mining right, irrespective of whether an individual was a shareholder in a company that held the mining right. She further argued that the reference in Section 11(1) to a “controlling interest” in a company was separate from the broader concept of an interest referred to in the first part of the section.
However, Judge Millar rejected that interpretation, finding that the legislation clearly distinguished between holders of mining rights and shareholders in companies that own those rights.
The court held that where a company is the holder of a mining right, the company itself is the legal holder of the interest and the mining right, explaining why the Act specifically refers to a “controlling interest” in such circumstances.
Afrimat argued that the court’s original decision was consistent with established legal precedent, including earlier judgments in the Mogale Alloys and Vantage Goldfields matters, and that there was no realistic prospect of a different outcome on appeal.
The second ground of appeal concerned the court’s decision to substitute its own remedy instead of referring the matter back to the Minister of Mineral and Petroleum Resources.
Mlotshwa argued that the court had effectively created new law by bypassing the requirements of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA) and exercising a discretion to grant relief directly.
Afrimat countered that the court had exercised a legitimate judicial discretion under exceptional circumstances and that such a discretion should not be interfered with lightly on appeal.
The company relied on Constitutional Court precedent affirming that appellate courts should be slow to interfere with a true judicial discretion unless it was exercised improperly or based on incorrect principles.
After considering the arguments presented by both sides, Judge Millar concluded that the requirements for leave to appeal had not been met.
“I am not persuaded that another court would come to a different conclusion or that there is any other compelling reason for the granting of leave to appeal,” the judge said.
The court accordingly ordered that “the application for leave to appeal is refused” and that Mlotshwa must pay Afrimat’s legal costs.
The ruling strengthens Afrimat’s position in the long-running dispute and removes a significant legal obstacle to the transfer of the mining right that formed the subject of the original proceedings.
BUSINESS REPORT