ARTICLE
25 September 2021

Gauteng High Court Judgment Has Far-reaching Implications For SA's Mining Sector

Tf
Tabacks (formerly Andersen Za)

Contributor

Tabacks (formerly Andersen Za) logo
As a full service super-boutique legal practice, we are committed to providing cost effective, quality and agile legal services, whilst developing a deep understanding of your business. With more than 25 years of active service in South Africa and an ethos built on client service, our value proposition lies in the fact that we are a progressive practice able to deliver high-quality, cost-effective and transparent legal solutions, customised for client specific needs both locally and abroad. We believe we are uniquely placed to ensure that your business succeeds.
The Gauteng Division of the High Court handed down its judgement in the matter between the Minerals Council of South Africa and the Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy and other respondents...
South Africa Energy and Natural Resources
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

The Gauteng Division of the High Court handed down its judgement in the matter between the Minerals Council of South Africa and the Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy and other respondents, noting that the continuing consequences of previous black economic empowerment (BEE) deals should be recognised.

It also confirmed that the Minerals and Petroleum Resources Department Act (MPRDA) does not empower the Minister of Mineral Resources to make law. This means that the 2018 Mining Charter is not binding subordinate legislation, but is rather an instrument that guides policy.

This was the key issue in the application, which sought clarity on the way forward for future mining charters developed in terms of the MPRDA, on the frameworks within which rights holders could exercise their rights, and on the scope and limitations of the Minister's powers.

According to the Minerals Council of South Africa, the judgment removes those clauses dealing with renewals of existing mining rights and transfers of mining rights which comply with the 26% BEE ownership target that compel companies to supplement their B-BBEE shareholdings in a prescriptive manner and to the levels set out in the 2018 Charter. This would have had the effect of diluting shareholders, and of stifling investment in the sector, the Council says.

The judgment also sets aside certain of the B-BBEE related requirements around the procurement of goods and services (most notably the capital goods target), and supplier and enterprise development. It also sets aside certain ownership, procurement and supplier development targets and provisions in the Charter relating to existing and new license holders in terms of the Diamonds Act and the Precious Metals Act.

The ambit of the judgment bears more detailed scrutiny to assess its reach and impact. It is too early to speculate as to whether it may be appealed by the Minister but demonstrates a welcome recognition of many of the challenges the mining industry faces in complying with ever-moving and in many respects onerous targets imposed through extra-parliamentary regulation.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More