- Motsitle Mining wants the February 2026 mining agreement with Swart Risk Management to be declared invalid.
- Swart Risk Management bases its right to operate on months of mining activity and on how Motsitle Mining conducted itself.
- Judge Petersen found there were genuine factual disputes and ordered that oral evidence be heard on the competing versions.
A legal battle over mining at Farm Vlakfontein 164 JP will now move to oral evidence. The High Court in Mahikeng found that it could not determine from affidavits whether Swart Risk Management was lawfully authorised to operate at the site.
Judge AH Petersen delivered judgment on 19 August 2026 in an application by Motsitle Mining – Vlakfontein Site and Chief Mushi Ezekiel Mabe. Motsitle Mining holds the preferential mining right over the property and argues that its former CEO, Charlotte Katlego Seise Ramafoko, had no authority to finalise the agreement that allowed Swart Risk Management to operate there.
Motsitle Mining says the agreement was unauthorised
Motsitle Mining says its board resolved on 23 February 2026 to remove Ramafoko as CEO because of concerns about agreements being concluded without the board’s knowledge or approval. Ramafoko does not oppose the application and confirmed that she did not have the authority to sign the disputed agreement.
The company went to the High Court seeking declarations that the 11 February 2026 agreement was invalid, unlawful and unenforceable. It also asked for an order stopping Swart Risk Management from mining and requiring it to remove its personnel and equipment from the property.
Swart Risk Management disputed the company’s version and relied on its dealings with Motsitle Mining and the community. It pointed to communications with Mabe, meetings, a draft agreement, and a sponsorship request that described it as a service provider. The company also said it had carried out open mining operations for about six months, spent more than R32 million, and employed 46 community members without any objections until March 2026.
Judge Petersen found that these circumstances raised a genuine question about whether Motsitle Mining’s conduct could support claims of apparent authority, estoppel or ratification. “Ms Ramafoko’s confirmatory affidavit is important evidence, but it is not, without more, dispositive,” the judge said.
Another agreement adds to the dispute
The case became more complicated when Phillip Diale Lekgau intervened. He claimed that the original mining arrangements were later replaced by an oral, or possibly tacit, agreement around April 2026. Under this alleged agreement, LKK Investment Holdings and Swart Risk Management were given different portions of the mining area.
Motsitle Mining disputes that such an agreement was ever finalised or authorised by its board. Petersen said this competing account created another material dispute about how Swart Risk Management acquired its claimed right to operate at the mine.
Judge sends key questions to oral evidence
Petersen dismissed preliminary objections concerning jurisdiction, arbitration, urgency, and the alleged non-joinder of the Batlhako Ba Matutu Traditional Council. The judge found that the main dispute was not about Motsitle Mining’s mining right, which all parties accepted was still in force, but rather about who was authorised to permit its exploitation.
The judge found there were two factual questions that could not fairly be resolved on paper. The first was whether Ramafoko had authority to conclude the February agreement or whether it was later ratified. The second was whether the alleged April oral or tacit agreement existed and was authorised by Motsitle Mining.
Petersen said both disputes could be resolved through focused oral evidence rather than forcing the parties to start new proceedings. “Nothing would be served by striking the matter from the roll only for it to return,” the judge said, noting the ongoing depletion of a finite mineral resource.
The affidavits will serve as evidence-in-chief, and the parties will be allowed to call and cross-examine witnesses. The court has ordered discovery and a pre-trial conference, and the status of Lekgau’s counter-application will be decided together with the referred issues. Costs have been reserved.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
