"The ruling of the court was not what we expected. Although what we viewed as expropriation of mineral rights was seen differently by the Constitutional Court, we respect the verdict of the latter being the apex legal authority of the country," said Möller.
Although the court confirmed that deprivation of coal rights with respect to the specific case before the court took place, there was unanimity amongst the members of the bench that expropriation did not occur, especially with respect to the specific old order mineral right holder, i.e. in this case Sebenza. The court based its argument on the finding that the State did not acquire any rights and the fact that Sebenza also had the exclusive right to apply for a mining or prospecting right for a twelve month period after implementation of the Minerals and Petroleum Resources Development Act.
"We will now embark on a process to study the judgment in detail as to determine what recourse is available to mineral right holders in circumstances different from the specifics of the Sebenza case," Möller said.
