•  
  •  
 

Publication Date

5-2024

Abstract

This case highlights the legal complexity between surface rights holders and mining rights holders over the same land area. The Court of Appeal had an opportunity to address an important issue which is the relationship between these conflicting property rights, in a way that could clarify the interpretation of the Mines and Minerals Act with regards to surface rights law. However, it missed the chance to address the full scope of this tension, particularly the notion of ‘correlative rights’ between mining and surface rights holders. In this judgment, the Court maintained that surface rights disputes should be resolved under land law and not under the Mines and Minerals Act. While this position is legally sound, the case brings to light the need for a more nuanced approach to property rights conflicts, especially as they concern the rights of mining licence holders who also own the land. The judgment thus serves as a reminder that there is still room for deeper legal reflection on how property rights are balanced in the context of national development goals, particularly when they involve natural resource extraction. Courts, as the ultimate interpreters of the law, have a responsibility to ensure that decisions in such cases promote clarity, fairness, and alignment with public policy objectives, paving the way for future legal frameworks that effectively address the interplay between surface and mining rights.

Download

Share

COinS