Subject: Supreme Court of Appeal Verdict between Barberton Giants: To Mine or to Conserve?

March 14, 2016                                                                                                                                       

The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) granted verdict unto the appeal case heard between the Mpumalanga Barberton Mountainland Owners Association (MOA) and The Barberton Mine Company.

The delivered verdict was of the case determining a nature curfew: to mine or NOT to mine…[Mining Law vs Environmental Law] whereby resulted the Supreme Court issued an mandamus; classified the case as “dismissed” following that of the High Courts.

The Barberton Mine Company, an 1884 established gold mining company which controls three mining division operations: Sheba, Consort and Fairview have instituted and lodged a suite post not granted access to the access and initiate mining activities upon the land operated sub by the Barberton Nature Reserve-that which owned by the Barberton Mountainland Owners Association.

This comes post Barberton mines having acquired mining prospecting licenses by the Department of Mineral Resources (DMR), with the estimation of possible gold reserves existing which could provide greater output and revenue for the mine.

Post failed meeting attempts in year 2015, the department, Barberton Mine embarked upon the initiative of launching such a suite at the North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria. Though these attempts deepened into mayhem failure as the DMR Director-General(DG) dismissed the (appeal) case on April 16, 2015.

The Protected Areas Act (PAA) was brought-forward but/yet the court dismissed the application and suggestion therefore.

Seconded auspices from DMR(second appellant), Barberton Mine initiated a suite on the merits of prohibition to access and utilize land. On the other side Barberton Mountainland Owners Association with auspices from Mpumalanga Tourism and Parks Agency (MTPA) which positioned as second appellant stated that such merits ceased being none credible without any basis since the land is an owned by the association itself and nevertheless is conserved sub preservation status: a natural  environmental area; one which its nature, biodiversity, ecology and ecosystem is highly o importance and relevant to the sustainability of the surrounding and core periphery.

Such a statement provided an eloquent indication in support as once understood and encouraged by the Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism. Thus, species classified to be worth natural and heritage importance were noted and considered. More so the discoveries as the court also found that the Barberton Mines intervention would hinder and hamper other future potential environmental findings; discoveries were of note considered in attention.

However though pledging cognizance to the defense, mining was too a base of precognitive importance that though investment is encouraged, sustainability too should also be an aspect of note and accountability. With basis that the mineral prospecting act suggests prohibition to an  mineral prospecting nor activities in any public nor government This was supported by the Constitution : Section 24[Environmental ACT] which provides insight that as accounted and outlined that environmental health and safety is priority of exercise amid the processes and activities of mining as quoted that: …the sustainability of environmental affairs should be performed whilst the social and economic conditions are promoted and uplifted: “…nations mineral and petroleum resources are developed and in an orderly and ecologically sustainable manner while promoting justifiable social and economic development”. The court therefore acknowledged the North High Court decision and thus found that it has exercised a constitutionally invalid action of as to/ upon the actions Barberton Mine and Department of Mineral Resources accountability. However, the appeal by Barberton Mines and the Barberton Mountainland Owners Association stands. Thus the Supreme Court of Appeal (Department of Justice [D.o.J] found the case dismissed with costs.

References:

·         The Supreme Court Of Appeal(SCA) Of the Republic of South Africa(RSA) judgement.

Reportable

Case no: 2016/2016

·         News 24 Online digital News Agency

 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ETxlRNg99kuMI9ETyQLV644QoxAyuXu3/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/10gAD1Msvkm8qy7ycEsvHDaT7C_ve_l3P/view?usp=sharing