Supreme Court Of Appeal Confirms The Exclusive Jurisdiction Of The Labour Court To Determine Disputes Concerning The Interpretation And Application Of The Mine Health And Safety Act, 29 Of 1996

In the case of TC Smelters (Pty) Ltd and Another v The Minister Department of Mineral Resources and Energy and Others (910/2024) [2026] ZASCA 40 (27 March 2026), the Supreme Court of Appeal ("SCA") ruled that the Mine Health and Safety Act, 29 of 1996 (“the MHSA”) confers a general and exclusive jurisdiction on the Labour Court to deal with “any dispute” involving the interpretation and application of the MHSA. As the Appellants' cause of action concerned the interpretation of the definition of “mine” in the MHSA and the application of the MHSA to the smelting operations, such matters fall squarely within the ambit of section 82(1) of the MHSA and are to be determined exclusively by the Labour Court.

Background

The Appellants (being TC Smelters Proprietary Limited (“TC Smelters”) and Samancor Chrome Limited ("Samancor")) conduct separate operations at the Buffelsfontein Farm 465JQ in the North West Province (“the farm”). The second appellant (Samancor) is the holder of the mining right issued over the farm and conducts mining operations at its Lesedi Mine. The first appellant (TC Smelters) owns and conducts smelting operations (comprising processing assets, including benefication and related assets) that produce charge chrome at the farm. TC Smelters does not have a mining right.

The Department of Mineral Reources and Energy (now also referred to as the Department of Mineral and Petroleum Resources) continued to treat the smelting operations of TC Smelters as forming part of Samancor’s mining operations under the MHSA despite various engagements and meetings between representatives of the DMPR and the representatives of the Department of Employment and Labour.

The Appellants approached the Gauteng Division of the High Court for an order declaring that the smelting operations on the farm “…do not constitute a "mine" as defined in section 102 of the Mine Health and Safety Act…” and that “…the provisions of the MHSA are not applicable to the [smelting] [o]perations”. The application was dismissed, with costs, by the High Court, which granted leave to appeal to the SCA.

The SCA considered, at the outset, whether the High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the application and noted that neither party had raised the question before the High Court or in the heads of argument filed on appeal and both sides proceeded on the assumption that jurisdiction was not an issue. Where a point of law is apparent on the papers, but the common approach of the parties proceeds from an incorrect understanding of the law, a court is obliged to raise the issue. The SCA did so mero motu and directed the parties to address the issue of jurisdiction.

Judgment

The enquiry before the SCA was whether the dispute raised before the High Court was one concerning the interpretation and application of the MHSA within the meaning of section 82(1) of the MHSA. The question was to be determined with reference to the formulation of the Appellants’ case before the High Court and not the substantive merits of the case. In summary, it was noted that if the pleadings, properly interpreted, establishes a claim that falls to be determined exclusively by the Labour Court in terms of the MHSA, the High Court lacks jurisdiction.

The pleaded case of the Appellants was that the smelting operations did not constitute a “mine”, having regard to the statutory definition of “mine” as defined in terms of the MHSA and that the Occupational Health and Safety Act, 85 of 1993 – and not the MHSA – governed the smelting operations. It was contended by the Appellants that where a declaration is sought that the MHSA does not apply, the MHSA “…was said not to constitute the legal basis of the claim, with the result that the high court retained jurisdiction”.

The judgment of the SCA noted the following:

• The MHSA confers a general and exclusive jurisdiction on the Labour Court to deal with “any dispute” involving the MHSA and its interpretation. Govindjee AJA noted “(a) dispute concerning the interpretation of a provision of the MHSA, including a definition, arises where there is disagreement to its proper meaning. A dispute concerning its application arises where there is disagreement as to whether the provision applies to particular facts or circumstances and may be invoked”.
• The Appellants’ cause of action concerned the interpretation of the definiton of a “mine” in the MHSA and the application of the MHSA to the smelting operations. Such matters “… fall squarely within the ambit of section 82(1) of the MHSA and are to be determined exclusively by the Labour Court”. It was further noted that to conclude otherwise would encourage “forum shopping” and applicants, at their election, may decided to bypass the Labour Court and approach the High Court to determine matters regulated by the MHSA.
• The Appellants' approach to jurisdiction was premised on the misreading of section 82(1) of the MHSA and "improperly rendered jurisdiction contingent upon relief sought by an applicant, rather than upon the nature of the dispute itself."
• Section 82(1) of the MHSA must be construed purposively so as to give full effect to Parliament's decision to vest exclusive jurisdiction in the Labour Court, and not in a manner that “…makes that allocation depend upon the outcome sought”. Absent jurisdiction, it was ruled as inappropriate for the SCA to express a view on the merits of the appeal.

The appeal was dismissed with costs and the order of the high court was set aside and substituted with the following order “(t)he application is struck from the roll with costs”.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.