Order consolidating cases

Hence this application.(Agri SA), whose objects include the making of representations to Parliament on legislation that might affect commercial farming, the institution of legal proceedings to challenge legislation in the interest of farming and generally the protection of the rights and interests of the commercial farming community.

The third amicus is the Centre for Applied Legal Studies (CALS), based at the University of the Witwatersrand.

Also included is the undertaking to take measures to address the effects of the skewed distribution of economic benefits which took place during the apartheid era and the creation of a mining regime that is internationally competitive and efficient.

[27] This synopsis of the objects of the MPRDA would be incomplete without an outline of portions of the transitional arrangements, relevant to mineral rights, which are provided for in Schedule II to the MPRDA.

Its commencement had the effect of freezing the ability to sell, lease or cede unused old order rights until they were converted into prospecting or mining rights with the written consent of the Minister for Minerals and Energy(Minister).

It also had the deliberate and immediate effect of abolishing the entitlement to sterilise mineral rights, otherwise known as the entitlement not to sell or exploit minerals.

Agri SA procured Sebenza’s claim for compensation against the payment of R250 000. [17] The rejection presented Agri SA with the opportunity to get certainty on the status of potential claims for compensation by its members.

As a result, litigation commenced in the North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria (High Court).

Consequently, white South Africans wield real economic power while the overwhelming majority of black South Africans are still identified with unemployment and abject poverty.This lodgment coincided with Agri SA’s decision to seek clarity from a court of law on its view that the commencement of the MPRDA had the effect of expropriating mineral rights conferred on holders by the Minerals Act.In pursuit of this objective, it identified Sebenza’s claim as the ideal test case for the vindication of the rights of its members which it believed the MPRDA had extinguished.For they were unable to benefit directly from the exploitation of our mineral resources by reason of their landlessness, exclusion and poverty.To address this gross economic inequality, legislative measures were taken to facilitate equitable access to opportunities in the mining industry.(MPRDA).

Leave a Reply