By The Department of Mineral and Petroleum Resources (DMPR) has stepped forward to clear the air regarding ongoing high-stakes litigation involving the Bapedi Kingdom, Samancor Chrome Ltd, and disputed land rehabilitation activities on the Wintersveld and Jagdlust farms in Limpopo.
The department seeks to address mounting public speculation, correct misunderstandings surrounding the department’s legal stance, and outline its precise regulatory boundaries under the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act (MPRDA), 2002.
Chronology of the Court Proceedings
The legal dispute centres on two Limpopo properties where Samancor Chrome Ltd has held an active mining right since 2016. The timeline of court interventions highlights a complex series of events:
- December 2025: The Bapedi Kingdom secured an ex parte High Court order allowing rehabilitation works on the properties through Envirostep (Pty) Ltd while simultaneously interdicting unlawful mining activities. The DMPR was cited as a respondent, but chose not to oppose or participate following legal counsel from the State Attorney. Notably, Samancor Chrome was omitted from these initial proceedings.
- February 2026: The initial court order was varied to explicitly apply to the Wintersveld and Jagdlust farms, still without Samancor Chrome being formally cited.
- May 2026: Following the seizure of Envirostep’s equipment by the South African Police Service (SAPS), the Bapedi Kingdom obtained a subsequent ex parte order to restrain both SAPS and the Minister of Mineral and Petroleum Resources from disrupting the rehabilitation efforts. SAPS subsequently entered the legal fray to oppose the matter.
- 31 July 2026: A joint hearing was conducted to argue the matter, after which the court reserved judgment. As of the department’s mid-September statement, no final ruling or subsequent order has been handed down.
Setting the Record Straight on Regulatory Roles
Addressing reports questioning its conduct, the DMPR emphasized that its decision not to oppose the initial application should not be misconstrued as an endorsement of the applicant’s demands. Instead, the department’s limited involvement stems strictly from its statutory oversight duties under the MPRDA.
Furthermore, the department firmly pushed back against narratives suggesting that a mining “licence” held by the state was suspended or set aside by the court. Clarifying its administrative position, the DMPR noted that it does not hold mining rights over the properties; the underlying mining right is held exclusively by Samancor Chrome Ltd and remains the core subject of the ongoing judicial review.
Awaiting Judicial Finality
With allegations circulating regarding potential regulatory lapses, the department stressed that these claims form part of active litigation and have not been tested or determined by a court of law. Consequently, the DMPR cautioned against treating unproven allegations as established findings.
As the judiciary weighs the arguments presented on 31 July 2026, the department has reiterated its respect for due process. The DMPR confirmed it will continue executing its legislative mandate and cooperating with law enforcement agencies wherever criminality in the minerals sector is alleged.
