---

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA FREE STATE DIVISION. BLOEMFONTEIN

Case No. : 1891/2013

In the matter between

REALEBOGA BOSALETSE N.O…………………………………........................First Applicant

LUCY AMMON N.O……………………………………………..........................Second Applicant

PUMZILE F. NGXITO N.O……………………………………….....................…Third Applicant

MASEHLEPHO E. MQHAJANE N.O…………………………...........................Fourth Applicant

TSIETSIE JOSEPH TAU N.O……………………………………..........................Fifth Applicant

DITABA L. SEBONYANE N.O…………………………………........................…Sixth Applicant

AADIL MATHER N.O………………………………………….........................Seventh Applicant

PATRICK A. MABILO N.O………………………………………......................Eighth Applicant

ESIAS JEREMIA GERBER N.O…………………………………......................Ninth Applicant

YUSUF KERBELKER N.O……………………………………….........................Tenth Applicant

FLOYD TEU N.O……………………………………….……….......................Eleventh Applicant

WHEATFIELDS INVESTMENTS

NO. 168 (PTY) LTD…………………………………….....................................Twelfth Applicant

and

THE MINISTER OF MINERAL RESOURCES …………….......................…First Respondent

DIRECTOR-GENERAL, DEPARTMENT

OF MINERAL RESOURCES ………………………………........................Second Respondent

ACTING REGIONAL MANAGER MINERAL

RESOURCES, FREE STATE REGION ……………………..........................Third Respondent

DE BEERS CONSOLIDATED MINES LTD……………........................…..Fourth Respondent

PONAHALO HOLDINGS (PTY) LTD………………………......................…Fifth Respondent

REINET FUND SCA FIS………………………………………........................Sixth Respondent

JAGERSFONTEIN DEVELOPMENTS

(PTY) LTD ………………………………………………............................Seventh Respondent

MARIUS DE VILLIERS N.O…………………………..................……….Eighth Respondent

HENK JOHAN VAN ZUYDAM N.O………………………...................…..Ninth Respondent

SIPHO PUWANI N.O……………………………………….......................….Tenth Respondent

GONTHUSANG EUGINE GOLIATH N.O……………......................….Eleventh Respondent

EZEKIEL ZAKHELE DUNJANE N.O…………………......................…..Twelfth Respondent

KOPANONG LOCAL MUNICIPALITY………………....................…Thirteenth Respondent

CORAM: MOCUMIE J, et MOLEMELA J, et JORDAAN J,

DELIVERED ON: 15 APRIL 2014

LEAVE TO APPEAL

MOCUMIE. J

[1] This is an application for leave to appeal against the whole of the judgment and order by the applicants to the Supreme Court of Appeal. The grounds for the application are numerous as set out in the notice of application for leave to appeal and need not be repeated. The application is opposed by all the respondents except the first to the third respondents who abide the decision of the court. I am indebted to all counsel for the detailed heads of arguments which were helpful.

[2] I have had the benefit of revisiting the judgment under attack and deem it unnecessary to traverse it paragraph by paragraph or to consider each ground of appeal separately suffice to say the following.

[3] The proper approach to determining whether a judgment or order is appealable to the Supreme Court of Appeal is well settled.[1] For a judgment or order to be appealable to the Supreme court of Appeal the judgment or order must be final in effect; not be susceptible of alteration by the court of first instance; and definitive of the rights of the parties.

[4] The order of this court is expressly confined to the interim relief under Part A of the notice of motion as sought by the applicants. The applicants have not and could not contend that the relief sought and granted was final in form or in effect. The applicants albeit open to them to argue that, notwithstanding the interim nature of the relief which they sought at the hearing, the dismissal of this application for interim relief was in effect final and definitive of the rights of the parties, had failed to make out such a case in their notice of application for leave to appeal or in their detailed heads of argument. A judgment and order of this nature is not appealable. The application falls to be dismissed on this basis alone.

[5] As a result the question whether there are reasonable prospects that another court may reach a different conclusion hardly comes into play.

[6] In the result, the following order is granted.

ORDER

Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal is dismissed with costs.

B.C. MOCUMIE, J

I concur,

MOLEMELA, J

I concur,

JORDAAN, J

On behalf of applicants: Adv Ellis

Instructed by:

Peyper Sesele Attorneys Inc.

BLOEMFONTEIN

On behalf of respondents: Adv Loxton and Van der Nest

Instructed by:

Vosloo Attorneys

BLOEMFONTEIN

---

---