The Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act No. 28 of
2002 ("MPRDA") has been amended and the amendments will
come into force on Friday 7 June 2013.
We briefly set out below some of the key changes which will
impact on the South African mining sector.
1. Transferability and encumbrance of prospecting and mining
Currently section 11 of the MPRDA provides that a prospecting
right or mining right or an interest in any such right, or a
controlling interest in a company or close
corporation, may not be ceded, transferred, let, sublet, assigned,
alienated or disposed of without the written consent of the
Minister, except in the case of a change of a controlling interest
in listed companies.
Thus the MPRDA only requires a section 11 application for a
change of control in an unlisted company but allows a change of
control in a listed company. The Amendment Act goes a step further,
and regulates a change of shareholding in both
listed and unlisted companies which hold mining rights. A disposal
of any interest in an unlisted company will require section 11
consent, while a disposal of a controlling interest in a listed
company will also require prior consent.
The Amendment Act also adds a new section which stipulates that,
if ministerial consent is not obtained, the cession, transfer or
disposal will be void. This provision is of little impact since
that was generally the conservative approach to section 11.
2. Amendment of rights, permits, programmes and plans
The Amendment Act prohibits amendments to programmes or permits,
which have the effect of extending an area or portion thereof. Also
prohibited are amendments that seek to add a share or
shares of the mineralised body unless such are
necessitated by an administrative error.
The effect of this amendment is that it will no longer be
permissible to amend a right so as to add an area to an existing
right. Thus one will have to lodge a new application to mine,
explore, prospect etc for areas that are not included in existing
3. Mine Dumps
Currently the MPRDA does not affect mine dumps created under old
order rights, they are governed by common law. As such, the dumps
are movable property unless the dump has acceded to the land on
which it is situated. This will depend on the intention of the
person who created the dump. If accession did occur, then the dump
becomes immovable property and part of the land on which it sits.
This would bring the dump within the ambit of the MPRDA.
If the mine dump remains movable property, it remains the
property of the person who created it unless ownership in the dump
has passed by acquisitive prescription to another person or the
dump has been abandoned and another person has assumed ownership
with the requisite intention. Ownership of the minerals in the dump
will vest in the holder of the mineral right in respect of such
The Amendment Act purports to change the position by changing
the definitions of residue stockpiles and residue
deposits. It is debatable what the precise effect of these
amendments are, although the intention of the DMR may well be to
make historical dumps subject to the provisions of the MPRDA.
The Amendment Act gives the minister powers to impose conditions
to a prospecting right or mining right. Such conditions must be
necessary to promote the interests of the community and may include
conditions requiring the participation of the community.
It remains to be seen how the minister will exercise this
The proclamation of the 2008 Amendment is significant, as it
amends several provisions of the MPRDA which will affect the
operations of South African mines. The MPRDA is likely to change
again in future – an explanatory memorandum in relation to a
further amendment Bill was promulgated by the DMR on 31 May and a
further amendment will be introduced to parliament shortly.
The Supreme Court of Canada gave the plaintiffs in a class action against Imperial Oil and others access to private communications the Competition Bureau of Canada had gathered through wiretaps in an investigation.
There is often debate during negotiations for joint venture and services agreements about the scope of the exclusion clause. Should liability include or be limited to "gross negligence", "wilful misconduct", or both? In addition to the differing levels of immunity that can be chosen, the parties can manage the likelihood of protracted litigation by clearly defining the chosen liability firewall. Through the use of contractual definitions for these terms, liability clauses provide a mechanism to