The other side of the story

Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Maranda press release
PRESS STATEMENT
MARANDA MINING (PTY) LTD vs LOUISE JOUBERT, ADAM MURRAY
CONSERVATION HOLDINGS (PTY) LTD AND SANWILD WILDLIFE TRUST
THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT IS MADE BY MARANDA MINING COMPANY:
1. On Friday, 29 June 2009 the Supreme Court of Appeals of South Africa
under case number 296/ 2008 dismissed the appeal lodged by Sanwild,
Joubert and Adam Murray Conservation Holdings with the cost of two
counsels.
2. The appeal was lodged in light of an order made in the in the Supreme
Court of South Africa (North Gauteng Division) under case number
7013/2008, giving Maranda Mining Company access to the property
known as portion 7 of the Farm Leydsdorp Dorpsgebied 779LT ("the
property").
3. The order under case number 7013/2008 was made after an application
was brought by Maranda Mining Company in which they seek access to
property in terms of a mining permit granted by the Department of
Minerals and Energy ("the DME") on 21 September 2006.
4. In terms of the Mining permit Maranda Mining Company have the right to
mine on 1,5 hectares of the property.
REASON FOR STATEMENT
5. From the start of the dispute to date Maranda Mining Company endured a
flurry of negative press, which was largely instigated by Louise Joubert of
Sanwild.
6. We would like to state unequivocally that the statements made by Louise
Joubert personally and in other capacities against Maranda Mining
Company are untrue, misleading, false and made purely with the intend to
harm Maranda Mining Company in its reputation.
7. Jouberts actions were also made with the intent to mislead the public as to
the true state of affairs.
8. Maranda Mining Company therefore is making this statement in order to
provide the other side of the story, to set the record straight and most of all
to state the truth. The Public as well as those who funded Joubert in her
frivolous opposition to Maranda Mining Company's Court actions deserves
to hear the true facts of this matter.
BACKGROUND
9. The area in question known, as "Eldorado" was first worked in the early
1890's
10. Before the current Act, Act 28 of 2002, came into operation the mineral
claims were held under license 28317, diagram RMT M46/1985.
11. During April 2005 Maranda Mining Company applied for a mining permit
as well as a prospecting right on the Property.
12. Come Lucky (PTY) Ltd, the then occupier of the property and registered
owner, were notified in terms of the statutory requirements of Maranda
Mining Company's intentions to apply for a Mining Permit and Prospecting
Right.
13. In the same time Maranda Mining Company advertised in a local
newspaper, a Public meeting to all interested and effected parties to
attend the meeting. Nobody attended the meeting.
14. All subsequent consultations by Maranda Mining Company were
conducted with Come Lucky.
SANWILD'S OCCUPATION OF THE PROPERTY
15. Sanwild only took occupation of the property during about September
2006 after the consultation process for the permit and the Prospecting
rights were completed.
16. Come Lucky never indicated to Maranda Mining Company that Sanwild
took occupation of the property.
17. The basis on which Sanwild took occupation of the property from Come
Lucky is not known and Sanwild failed to mention this in their Court
papers. It is indeed trite law that it is the duty of the owner of property to
inform the tenant of any restrictions with regard to their tenancy.
18. On 25 June 2007 Adam Murray bought the property from Come Lucky.
Sanwild, as a shareholder of Adam Murray were also a part of the said
sale and a signatory of the deed of sale.
19. In the said deed of sale it is clearly stated that the Purchasers are aware
of the fact that Maranda Mining Company applied for a mining permit. The
property was only registered into the name of Adam Murray on 28
February 2008.
20. Sanwild was aware of Maranda Mining Company's application for a mining
permit when they first occupied the property. Sanwild in their Court papers
and in the press conveniently omits to mention this fact.
MINING PERMIT
21. The mining permit was signed by the DME on 21 September 2006 and
received by Maranda Mining Company at the end of January 2007. The
Supreme Court of Appeals also found that Maranda Mining Company
complied with all statutory requirements.
22. Maranda Mining Company informed Come Lucky that they were
successful in their application for a Mining Permit. Come Lucky at this
stage still made no mention that Sanwild is in occupation of the property.
23. Maranda Mining Company only became aware of the fact that Sanwild is
in occupation of the property on 31 October 2007 after attempting to
access the property.
24. Maranda Mining Company met with Sanwild and their Attorneys in order to
discuss the intended Mining operations with them. At this meeting
Maranda Mining Company made several suggestions with regard to the
practical side of the intended mining. Sanwild undertook to revert back to
Maranda Mining Company but failed to do so. Access to the property was
still denied.
25. In December 2008 Maranda Mining Company gave Sanwild a letter
stating that they should take the necessary legal steps to stop Maranda
Mining Company from mining. Again Sanwild elected to do nothing.
26. In a total disregard of the Act, Sanwild merely closed the gate and refused
Maranda Mining Company access. These actions by Sanwild forced
Maranda Mining Company to approach the Supreme Court for an Order
granting them access.
EFFECTS OF MINING
27. Maranda Mining Company in terms of the Mining Permit is only entitled to
mine 1,5 hectares on the property. The mining area, as well as the
prospecting, area amounts to about 11 Hectares.
28. The mining and prospecting area is on the one border of the Property and
can be easily fenced out of the property. Maranda Mining Company
indicated that they are willing to properly fence the area with a game fence
to specifications at their own cost. When fenced the interference with
wildlife as well as Sanwild can be reduced to a minimum.
29. Maranda Mining Company also indicated that they would endeavor to
access the property from the neighbours farm in order to minimize
interference with Sanwild's activities. Sanwild purposely omits these facts
in their press statements.
30. The area in question is also not an environmentally sensitive area, nor
does it fall within a reserve or environmental protected area.
31. The effect of the proposed mining activities on wildlife and on Sanwild is
exaggerated to the point of being ridiculous. If one would look at all the
facts soberly and objectively, it will be clear that the mine and the
sanctuary is not mutually exclusive and that they can co-exist with the
minimum effort.
32. Sanwild is not operating a registered "sanctuary" or a "reserve" and there
is no legal basis for them to refer to themselves as such. These
statements by Sanwild are misleading and made with the intent to create
the misconception that Maranda Mining Company intends to mine in an
existing reserve or sanctuary.
33. As far as Maranda could establish with the Department of Environmental
affairs and tourism only the following two permits were issued to Sanwild:
33.1 A permit to establish and operate a Rehabilitation Centre. This
permit was granted in June 2005 and lapsed in June 2008. Seeing
as Sanwild only occupied the property in question from about
August 2006 this permit in any event could not have been granted
for this property;
33.2 A permit to import a live wild animal. This permit apparently was
used in the moving of the Thukela Elephants. The permit lapsed in
December 2006. Again this permit could not apply to the current
property, as Sanwild was not occupying it.
34. In 2008 and again in February 2009 Maranda gave notice to the
Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism that any applications for
permits by Sanwild would be opposed, seeing as on their own account the
animals and their activities would affect Maranda's rights to mine. No
response has been received from the Department of Environmental Affairs
and Tourism in this regard. During Augustus 2008 Maranda consulted with
Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism at Polokwane who
indicated that there are no applications by Sanwild to register a Sanctuary
and/or any other application.
35. Maranda Mining Company further provided sufficient security with the
DME for the rehabilitation of the mining area.
36. Maranda Mining Company obtained their rights first and there is no legal
basis why Sanwild can refuse mining on the property.
ECONOMIC EFFECTS
37. The legal cost of Maranda Mining Company amounts to about R800 000
for which Sanwild, Louise Joubert and Adam Murray Conservation
Holdings (PTY) Ltd will be responsible. Together with their own legal cost
this totally unnecessary opposition to Maranda Mining Company's rights
will cost about R1, 6 million, which will most likely be paid out of
donations.
38. Maranda Mining Company is also in the process of calculating its
damages suffered by the actions of Sanwild and the other parties
39. The mine will provide work opportunities for several employees and the
economical benefit for the area, as well as the province, will be
substantial.
CONSLUSION
40. Maranda Mining Company complied with all legislation to obtain a valid
mining permit.
41. Sanwild, notwithstanding the fact that they had knowledge of Maranda
Mining Company’s application when purchasing the property, elected to
take no legal and lawful steps to prohibit Maranda Mining Company from
exercising its rights. Instead Sanwild endeavored to unreasonably and
unlawfully deny Maranda Mining Company access to the property.
42. Taking in consideration all facts, Maranda Mining Company, was more
than willing to accommodate the then owner and the current occupier of
the property.
43. Sanwild only obtained their rights after Maranda Mining Company
obtained their mining permit. The correct way for Sanwild would have
been to properly apply for the necessary permits and to consult with all
affected and interested parties, before they engaged in their activities.
44. It is not correct for Sanwild in proceeding with activities, which on their
own account would sterilize the minerals rights, without properly
consulting with all the effected parties, including the Department of
Minerals and Energy, as the custodian of all minerals rights.
45. Take note that all supporting documents will be made available on
request.
*********
Posted by wildtalk at 5:59 PM