Comment
Author: Admin | 2025-04-28
Immovableproperties and that such consent has not been validlyterminated;13.3That they live on the Farm and that if the interdict would be grantedit would amount to eviction;13.4That the Department of Mineral Resources (“DMR”) gavethem permission to mine on 10 hectares of land on one ofthe farmsand that they have a right to make a living;13.5That Ekapa Minerals has no license to mine and is therefore mining inconflict of the MPRDA;13.6That the citation of the sixth respondent is impermissible and thatthe order sought is unenforceable;13.7That De Beers has failed to engage with them with the purpose offinding a solution; and13.8That the requirements for an interdict have not been met. LISPENDENS AND EVICTION[14]The respondents allege that prior to this application there wereother two pending cases brought by De Beers against them,namely:14.1The application for eviction which is currently the subject of anappeal to the Full Bench of this Court, ‘SwedishInternational v Lucky Seekoei & Others under Case Number2086/2016;and14.2EkapaMining Company & Others v Lucky Seekoei & Others under CaseNumber 2057/2016’referred to as the Ekapa Mining interdict.[15]The respondents allege further that the parties in casu andthe relief sought in the Ekapa Minerals interdict are identical and,so is the cause of action. The High Court judgment (HighCourt CaseNumber 2057/2016 delivered on 13 January 2017 ) is the subject of anappeal to the Constitutional Court under Case NumberCCT 195/17. Therespondents contend further that if the Constitutional Courtdismisses the said application the matter would beres judicata.[16]De Beers asserts that the immovable properties over which EkapaMinerals obtained an interdict under
Add Comment