MORE TROUBLE FOR BLOCK
FORMER ANC provincial chairperson John Block’s troubles have doubled following a Supreme Court of Appeal ruling that has found SA Soutwerke (Pty) Ltd, of which he was a director, liable for paying damages for mining salt with a fraudulent licence at Vrysoutpan in the Kalahari.
Block and co-accused Christo Scholtz, the CEO of Trifecta Holdings, are awaiting an application before a full bench of the Supreme Court of Appeal to overturn their conviction of corruption and money laundering.
They were found guilty in the Northern Cape High Court in October 2015 and were sentenced to 15 years imprisonment each. They were not granted leave to appeal their sentences.
Delivering judgment last week, Supreme Court of Appeal Judge Christiaan van der Merwe concluded that SA Soutwerke was liable for damages, where Saamwerk Soutwerke (Pty) Ltd was deprived of the right to mine at Vrysoutspan from September 6 2008 to June 25 2011.
He advised that the economic losses incurred by Saamwerk Soutwerke should be calculated on a “continuous basis” of wrongdoing committed by SA Soutwerke.
Mining permits were issued by the Department of Minerals and Energy to both Saamwerk Soutwerke and SA Soutwerke to mine at Vrystoupan, where the state is the holder of the mineral rights.
Saamwerk Soutwerke claimed that while it had possessed a mining licence for many years, it was prevented from mining there from 2007 to 2011 and was then forced to vacate the salt mine in 2011.
Saamwerk Soutwerke maintained that a forged mining permit was awarded to SA Soutwerke that permitted mining for an indefinite period as the letter stipulated no expiry date.
Saamwerk Soutwerke applied to the Northern Cape High Court in 2007 to interdict SA Soutwerke from mining there as well as to declare the mining right invalid.
By mutual agreement, all mining activity was suspended in 2009 pending an appeal that was made by SA Soutwerke after a high court order ruled in favour of Saamwerk Soutwerke.
Judge Van der Merwe pointed out that there was “no innocent explanation” regarding the forged mining permit.
“The probabilities are overwhelming that SA Soutwerke, with the assistance of the department, was complicit in forging MP169/2004 and that its reliance on MP169/2004 was fraudulent. It cannot be doubted that this conduct was wrongful and caused Saamwerk to be deprived of a right to mine at Vrysoutpan.”
The court indicated that it was not possible nor necessary to determine exactly when and how SA Soutwerke received the original permit MP169/2003.
“Once it had been received the second page thereof must have been used as the second page of the forged MP169/2004. The second page, which was exactly the same as the copy of the second page of MP169/2003, had been separated from the first page and had been attached to one document which was not the first page of MP169/2004. The evidence of punch holes through only the second page of MP169/2004 is telling,” van der Merwe added.
He stated that the conduct of the Department of Minerals and Energy, who Saamwerk Soutwerke claimed had acted with “malicious intent and dishonesty, alternatively negligently”, was due to “administrative omissions” and should not be held responsible for any losses incurred.
“The omissions did not involve dishonesty or bad faith. There is no basis for finding that the department intended to cause damages to Saamwerk Soutwerke by delaying the execution of the mining right. At best the omissions were negligent but is is not necessary to determine this as a distinct and separate issue.”
Van der Merwe was of the view that adequate steps were taken by the department to investigate the validity of the permits.