dra final, page-46

Interesting week ahead.
Overseas markets going down south.
News flow expected this coming week.

Not sure whether this article of any use:

Court deals fatal blow to expropriation claims
David McKay | Fri, 01 Jun 2012 12:29





[miningmx.com] – THE South African government is not liable for compensation for mineral rights it awards to mining companies following a Supreme Court of Appeal judgement on May 31.
The judgement - which states that the right to mine is controlled by the state - effectively reverses a High Court judgement in Pretoria in 2011 which said mineral rights holders who forfeited land could claim compensation.
In that earlier judgement, mineral rights holders who forfeited their rights when the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act (MPRDA) came into effect in May, 2004 were entitled to claim for financial loss - an action brought by AgriSA.
"It extinguishes all compensation claims," said Hulme Scholes, an independent mineral rights lawyer who added he thought the judgement was flawed. "But there's nothing that can be done now. There's no compensation for former mineral rights holders because there is no expropriation," he said.
Peter Leon, Head of Africa and mining and energy projects at Webber Wentzel said, however, that the judgement did leave "the door open" to individual mineral rights holders if they can show the MPRDA deprived them of a particular right and vested that right in the state".
But claims by companies, such as the now abandoned court case brought by granite miner Red Graniti against the state several years ago can't really be launched. In fact, there haven't been any cases of successful litigation by the private sector in this regard. Anglo Platinum once tried to take Government to court claiming expropriation under the MPRDA but that resulted in an out of court commercial deal.
"The judgement is flawed because there are four types of land ownership: state land, alienated state land, private land and proclaimed land," said Scholes. "The court has conveniently forgotten that base metals could be mined in terms of private individuals (and might be subject to expropriation). From my very narrow, purist, legal box this is an issue, but life has to move on," said Scholes.
The Supreme Court of Appeal, in its deliberations, said there hadn't been material harm suffered by existing mineral rights holders - the mining firms - as they had continued to mine the land, effectively leasing it from the state.
In order to do this, however, mining firms have to comply with empowerment legislation, a process that analysts say has led to significant divestment from the South African mining industry since 2004.