SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Gold/Mining/Energy : SOUTHERNERA (t.SUF) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: DavidA who wrote (1157)5/19/1998 1:26:00 PM
From: INFOMAN  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 7235
 
The ownership of the mineral rights were still registered in the names of the original owners.These rights automatically passed on to the heirs according to SA law.There were no intervening causes that could have affected this ownership.If they had been transferred or sold the new owners would have been registered with the relevant departments.There is no evidence anywhere to contradict this simple fact and the rules of evidence are applicable.

By your own admission, you have stated that SUF applied a separate set of rules in their acquisition of the mineral rights surrounding the M1.
I quote:'Did SUF concur in meeting legal proceeding in effort to acquire these mineral rights , YES , they have spoken directly with the owners of such rights.'
It is a matter of public record that SUF made no attempt to contact the heirs of the M1 even though they were easily traceable.
How do you explain this obvious contradiction?

As nempela posted , DE Beers found nothing of value so why would they have contacted the heirs?
I again quote the relevant section of his posting 1113:'The property had been prospected by De Beers a decade ago.De Beers abandoned the property (a matter of public record) after finding nothing at Marsfontein in 1987.'

The Constitution takes precedence over any law that might infringe on any group or individual rights including Parliament itself.