The respondent acquired the mineral rights in February 2005 from Dynamic Mineral Development (Pty) Ltd whose predecessor in title had acquired them in 2002 from the Department of Minerals and Energy (DME) representing the State. At the time the respondent acquired the mineral rights, Come Lucky (Pty) Ltd (Come Lucky) was the owner of the land. The deed of transfer in terms of which the DME alienated the mineral rights defined these as certain 20 unnumbered base mineral claims.

             However, one cannot consider just that one part of the form in isolation. It is one of a number of questions relating to access roads. In this regard the indication in C2.15 that the access road will not be longer than 1.5 km, in C2.16 that ‘no trees would be uprooted when constructing access roads’, as well as the indication in C2.17 that ‘foreign material like crushed stone, limestone or any material other than the naturally occurring top soil would be placed on the road surface’ show clearly that the ‘no’ tick in C2.14 (ostensibly indicating that no new roads would be constructed), is simply a mistake as pointed out by the respondent’s counsel. I cannot also fathom a situation where the permit holder can be regarded bound by a clearly mistaken tick on the form. I am of the view that, when all the questions and answers are considered in that portion of the form, it is clear that the construction of a new road was envisaged when the environmental management plan was submitted.

            Furthermore, there is no indication on the papers that there are any existing roads from any public road to the mineral rights area. This can only mean that the Minister and officials of the DME, when granting the permit, and approving the environmental management plan, were alive to that fact. Therefore, when the permit was granted and the environmental management plan approved, the respondent was also granted the right to construct a new road to the mineral rights area. In the absence of any access road to the mineral rights area, it remains a mystery how, in the appellants’ mind, the respondent is to exploit its mining rights. In the final analysis it remains for us to clarify that the relief granted by the court a quo does not authorise or permit the respondent to contravene any of the provisions of the Act or commit an offence.

          将 感谢100论坛币！！！