West Rand Central Gold Mining Company, Limited v. The King
England and Wales Divisional Court
2 K.B. 391 (1905)

- Written by Deanna Curl, JD
Facts
On October 2, 1899, two parcels of gold belonging to West Rand Central Gold Mining Company (the mining company) (plaintiff) were seized by officials of the Transvaal Republic while the gold was in transit between Johannesburg and Cape Town. On October 9, more of the mining company’s gold was taken from their bank. The mining company alleged that the gold was also taken by officials of the Transvaal Republic, the government of the republic that existed at the time of the thefts. On October 11, 1899, a war broke out between England and the Transvaal Republic that lasted until September 1, 1900. As a result of the war, all of the territories of the republic were conquered and annexed by England and the government of the republic no longer existed. In June 1904, the mining company filed a petition against his majesty’s government (defendant) alleging that the gold had been taken by the government of the former republic for its use and that the mining company had never been compensated for it. The petition alleged that by succeeding the government of the former republic, the obligation to pay for the lost gold was then vested in his majesty’s government. His majesty’s government demurred on the petition.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Alverstone, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.