mining, page-10

The only question arising about ownership is from NKP release.

The Con court has excepted that Bengwenyama-Ye-Maswazi Tribal Council are the owners. This is a FACT.
It's funny that this "other" tribe is not mentions once in the hole ruling.

So what FACT are you basing your "REAL and serious question" on.

It's interesting to note that Genorah approached the Bengwenyama-Ye-Maswazi Tribal in Feb 06.
If they had no claim, why go to them.

[9]
Genorah?s interest in obtaining prospecting rights over the Community?s farms surfaced in early 2006. A representative of Genorah visited the traditional leader of the Community, Kgoshi Nkosi, on 3 February 2006 and informed him that Genorah wished to speak to him about certain prospecting applications. There is a dispute on the papers
about what exactly transpired at this meeting, but it is common cause that the representative left a prescribed consultation form. The form simply provides blocks to be
ticked ―yes‖ or ―no‖ to indicate whether there are any objections to the prospecting applications. If the answer is ―yes‖, a further five lines are provided to detail the ―full particulars‖ of the objection. The form was never signed by anyone on behalf of the Community.

[10]
On 13 March 2006 the Kgoshi replied to Genorah in the following terms:

Your letter that notifies us or rather consults us about your interest in our land had been received. As your letter requires us to enable you to comply with relevant provisions of the Act, as well as completion/filling
of the form attached, we would like to advise that Bengwenyama-yaMaswati would do that, once we know each other. For now, we don?t know each other well. The form that you request us to complete, seems o be more binding, as it does not fall within the definition of our standard letter that we give to Companies that applies for similar rights.Bengwenyama-ya-Maswati has an interest in the Property you applied
for. We submitted an application for prospecting on three farms including Nooitverwacht 324 KT.
The good luck wished to ourselves and other companies in an attempt of getting similar rights are also wished to your Company.‖

To this old-worldly and courteous response Genorah did not reply.

You can bang on about "questions" all you want, but the Con Court has no question of ownership. If there was, don't you think this "other" tribe would have been a pretty big part of this case? There is no mention of them at all, or ownership. Or did Genorah's lawyers forget to include this in the case.

My statement is based on facts from the Con court and yours is based on our "full disclosure" friends.

If the Con court says that the Bengwenyama-Ye-Maswazi Tribal Council are the owners, how can DMR give the rights to anyone else?

Maybe you should re read the case and see just how "erroneous" that is.