The Middelburg High Court has delivered a scathing judgment against mining company
Asantee Holdings (Pty) Ltd, dismissing its opposition to the seizure of mining equipment used for illegal activities on municipal land.
First heard in Middelburg on December 18, 2024, the case centred on efforts by the Emalahleni Local Municipality to prevent zama zama activities on its property in Extension 16.
On October 22, 2024, the municipality approached the court seeking an urgent
interdict to halt illegal mining operations on its property in Extension 16, Emalahleni.
The municipality accused unnamed individuals, later identified as unlawful occupiers (first respondent), of damaging municipal land and engaging in unauthorised mining activities. The court granted an interim order permitting the sheriff to seize and secure mining equipment on the property while the matter was pending.
The black-owned company, Asantee Holdings, later joined the proceedings, claiming ownership of the seized assets and arguing that it was a legitimate equipment rental company with no involvement in illegal mining. However, acting judge Malangeni dismissed their defence as poorly substantiated.
In the judgment delivered on Thursday, Malangeni confirmed that the municipality was justified in its actions and lambasted Asantee Holdings for failing to substantiate its claims.
“The second respondent came before this court to oppose this application bare-handed or without valid reasons. I do not understand the basis for opposing this application. To me, it opposes just to inconvenience the applicant,” the judge said.
Asantee failed to provide critical evidence to back its claims, such as title deeds or registration numbers proving ownership of the seized equipment.
“The second respondent dismally failed to produce any proof of ownership of the assets it claims,” Judge Malangeni stated.
“The onus lies with the second respondent to convince the court in the form of documentary proof… No title in any form has been brought before this court.”
The municipality argued that the mining equipment and vehicles were key to recovering damages caused to its property and identifying those involved in the unlawful activities. Judge Malangeni agreed.
“I cannot find any justifiable reasons to order the release of the assets claimed by the
second respondent. If I order such, the assets in question would land in the wrong hands or the wrong claimant.”
The court confirmed the interim order, allowing the municipality to retain custody of the seized equipment and banning further mining activities on the property.
