DMPR: Clarifies Bapedi Kingdom Samancor Chrome Litigation Involvement

• The Department of Mineral and Petroleum Resources (DMPR) clarified its neutral stance in ongoing litigation between the Bapedi Kingdom and Samancor Chrome Ltd regarding mining and rehabilitation on Limpopo farms.
• The Bapedi Kingdom secured two ex parte High Court orders in December 2025 and May 2026, authorizing rehabilitation and restraining interference, with Samancor Chrome not initially cited.
• The DMPR, cited as a respondent, chose not to oppose the initial application based on legal advice, stressing this does not imply endorsement of the relief sought.
• Samancor Chrome Ltd has held the mining right over the Wintersveld and Jagdlust farms since 2016, a fact the DMPR highlighted to correct misconceptions about its own holdings.
• Judgment in the case has been reserved since a joint hearing on July 31, 2026, with the DMPR emphasizing that allegations against its regulatory conduct remain unproven.

The DMPR explicitly stated that this non-opposition does not signify an endorsement of the relief sought by the Bapedi Kingdom, nor does it imply that the Department is taking a definitive stance in the underlying dispute between the involved parties.

The Department of Mineral and Petroleum Resources (DMPR) recently issued a statement on September 19, 2026, aiming to clarify its involvement in a complex legal dispute concerning mining activities and rehabilitation efforts on the Wintersveld and Jagdlust farms in Limpopo. This litigation involves the Bapedi Kingdom and Samancor Chrome Ltd, the latter of which has held a mining right over these properties since 2016. The Department's intervention comes amidst media scrutiny regarding its role in the ongoing DMPR Bapedi Kingdom Samancor Chrome litigation.

The legal saga commenced in December 2025 when the Bapedi Kingdom secured an ex parte order from the High Court. This initial Bapedi Kingdom mining rehabilitation order authorized Envirostep (Pty) Ltd to undertake rehabilitation work on the farms and simultaneously interdicted any unlawful mining activities. Notably, Samancor Chrome, the established mining right holder, was not cited as a party in these initial proceedings. The DMPR, however, was named as a respondent. Following internal legal counsel from the State Attorney, the Department opted not to oppose or participate in this application. The High Court order was subsequently modified in February 2026, specifically to encompass the Wintersveld and Jagdlust farms, yet Samancor Chrome remained uncited at this juncture.

Further developments occurred in May 2026, following an incident where the South African Police Service (SAPS) seized equipment belonging to Envirostep. In response, the Bapedi Kingdom obtained another ex parte order. This subsequent order sought to prevent both SAPS and the Minister of Mineral and Petroleum Resources from interfering with the ongoing rehabilitation activities. SAPS subsequently decided to oppose this particular aspect of the matter. The entire dispute was then consolidated and argued during a joint hearing held on July 31, 2026, after which the court reserved its judgment. As of the Department's statement date, September 19, 2026, no judgment has been handed down, nor is the DMPR aware of any further court orders in the case.

The Department of Mineral and Petroleum Resources South Africa emphasized that its decision not to oppose the initial ex parte application should not be misconstrued. The DMPR explicitly stated that this non-opposition does not signify an endorsement of the relief sought by the Bapedi Kingdom, nor does it imply that the Department is taking a definitive stance in the underlying dispute between the involved parties. This clarification is crucial for understanding the Department's neutral regulatory posture in the Limpopo mining dispute clarification.

The Department's involvement in such matters is fundamentally rooted in its statutory regulatory responsibilities, as mandated by the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act, 2002. It acts as a regulator, not a direct participant in commercial or community disputes over mining rights. Furthermore, the DMPR addressed specific misconceptions regarding its own holdings. It clarified that the court order did not suspend or set aside any mining "licence" held by the Department itself, as the Department does not possess a mining right or licence over the Wintersveld and Jagdlust farms. The pertinent mining right in question, central to this litigation, remains firmly with Samancor Chrome Ltd, which has held it over the Samancor Chrome Wintersveld Jagdlust farms since 2016.

The Department also took the opportunity to address reports suggesting that it has failed to adequately discharge its regulatory responsibilities in this complex matter. The DMPR underscored that these allegations are merely issues raised by one of the parties involved in the proceedings. They have not been judicially determined or substantiated by the court, and therefore, should not be presented as established findings against the Department. This stance highlights the importance of awaiting judicial pronouncements before drawing conclusions about regulatory performance.

As the Bapedi Kingdom mining rehabilitation order and related ex parte order mining rights remain under judicial consideration, the Department reiterated that, to its knowledge, the matter has not reached a final determination or settlement. With judgment reserved since the July 31, 2026, hearing, the DMPR continues to respect the integrity of the judicial process. The Department affirmed its commitment to fulfilling its statutory responsibilities throughout the pendency of the proceedings. Additionally, the DMPR pledged ongoing cooperation with law-enforcement agencies in instances where allegations of criminality within the minerals sector arise, aligning with its broader legislative mandate to ensure compliance and uphold the rule of law.

Lawyers advising mining companies or communities involved in disputes over mining rights and rehabilitation in South Africa should note the Department's clarified neutral stance and its emphasis on statutory responsibilities under the MPRDA. This statement indicates that the Department's non-opposition to certain court orders does not imply endorsement, which is crucial for understanding the regulatory landscape and potential future interventions in similar complex litigation.

Source: Original reporting via Department of Mineral and Petroleum Resources statement