Click here to read the full judgment on Saflii

1. The applicants’ brought an urgent application essentially to restrain the first and second respondents from exercising a mining right held by the first respondent on the farm Drooge Veldt. There is really only one substantive prayer in the relevant Notice of Motion dated 20 February 2018. This is prayer 2 of the said Notice of Motion, which reads as follows:

“That pending the final zoning of the farm Drooge Veldt No. 292 in the administrative district of Barkly-West to allow mining operations to be performed on the said farm, the first and second respondents are interdicted and restrained from conducting any mining activities on the farm Drooge Veldt;”

2. Initially, prayer 2 of the said Notice of Motion read somewhat differently and first and second respondents, correctly took the point that the relief sought by applicants was nonsensical. At the hearing hereof, applicants moved for an amendment which is reflected in prayer 2 as quoted above. First and second respondents did not oppose such amendment, which was duly granted with no order as to costs.

3. The present application was the third application by either one or both of the applicants for the same relief based on the same grounds in a period extending over more than two years. However, the first and second respondents did not oppose the application on the basis of a lack of urgency. Accordingly, I will not deal with the present application on that basis and will decide the matter on the merits of the application.