On 13 February 2026, the Supreme Court of Appeal held that section 5(3) of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act, 2002 (MPRDA) unambiguously permits the holder of a mining right to enter the relevant property. The Supreme Court of Appeal emphasised that landowners are obliged to allow mining right holders access to do whatever is reasonably necessary for the effective exercise of the mining right, while the mining right holder must exercise its rights civiliter modo (in a reasonable manner).
The matter arose from a dispute between Stonewell Quarry (Pty) Ltd t/a Dorning Crushers (Stonewell) (the holder of a mining right) and the Matatiele Local Municipality (Municipality), which owned the property. In 2012, Zincede Ngokwakho Housing (Pty) Ltd (Zincede) was granted a mining right over the property. It subsequently concluded a lease with the Municipality in 2016 and ceded the mining right to Stonewell in 2020, with the Minister’s consent. When Stonewell sought to renew the lease agreement, the Municipality refused and sought an eviction order. The High Court granted the eviction, holding that a mining right alone did not entitle Stonewell to remain on the property.
The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the holder of a mining right is entitled to access the property to which that right relates to in order to exploit the right without the landowner’s consent and without a valid lease.
The Supreme Court of Appeal further found that the cession of the mining right did not require the Municipality’s consent, as section 11 of the MPRDA requires only ministerial consent. The cessionary was entitled to exercise the rights under the lease agreement.
This judgment confirms that a validly held mining right entitles the holder to access and exploit the relevant property, and that a landowner cannot frustrate the exercise of a mining right by refusing access or seeking an eviction.