Mining contractor Terrapan Masjinerie failed in its urgent bid to interdict another company from appointing other contractors for diamond mining in North West properties, that allegedly produces R30m annual turnover, after the high court ruled there was no urgency.
The Mahikeng high court ruled Terrapan “has never been prevented” from mining on properties held by the other company, Turnover Trading.
The judgment outlines precedent for when urgency claims can be claimed, particularly between companies.
For years, Turnover Trading held a prospecting right to diamond mining in North West properties that lapsed in 2021 due to lack of funds.
In 2023, with financial assistance from one of its longtime contractors, Terrapan, Turnover Trading was able to renew its right.
Turnover Trading and Terrapan entered into an agreement, where the latter would receive 15% of the gross mining proceedings. However, both parties later disputed whether Terrapan was appointed as sole contractor.
Terrapan representatives found “a ramp had already been built” and pans installed on the properties in May. The equipment belonged to another contractor, called George Graham. Terrapan’s attorneys wrote twice to Turnover Trading, but received no response.
Turnover Trading, however, said it wanted to resume activities as soon as possible because “it [had] been sometime without mining”. It corresponded with Terrapan, but Terrapan had been “delaying starting”. Terrapan “was sceptical”, Turnover Trading said, because an inspection indicated there would only be a few months of work.
Turnover Trading then contacted Graham, who was willing to start immediately.
This led to complex dealings between the three parties, but Turnover Trading said it “has never denied [Terrapan] an opportunity to … work”. It only denied Terrapan “is sole … contractor”. Turnover Trading said the properties had a combined 9,000ha of land “which [Terrapan] does not… have the capacity to mine.”
Terrapan rejected this. It also said if its interdict fails, “it will suffer substantial harm”, as it will be losing out on revenue and have to “reduce its workforce”.
Turnover Trading again rejected this, arguing Terrapan “has not been working on site since … 2021”.
Terrapan then brought an urgent bid to stop activities.
Mahikeng high court judge Francis Reid ruled on Tuesday there was no urgency. Reid outlined precedent for when an urgency exists. This is when a litigant “cannot be afforded substantial redress” at a normal court hearing months down the line, because the urgent issue will “irreparably harm” the litigant by then.
However, that was not the case here. “Terrapan … may conduct mining activities,” she wrote. This undermines Terrapan’s urgency claim.
She also said Terrapan undermined its urgency claim because it waited a month after finding out about Graham before instituting proceedings. This was “in an ordinate[ly] long period”. Its lawyers “could have done more than write two letters”.
Reid stressed Terrapan was welcome to bring a normal claim, rather than an urgent one, down the line to resolve its major dispute about whether it was the sole contractor. However, it could not do so on urgency.
She dismissed Terrapan’s claim with costs.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.