The fact that incomplete and manipulated documentation, which was "fraudulently" obtained and copied from the Sishen Iron Ore Company's (SIOC) title deeds, was submitted as part of Imperial Crown's Trading's (ICT's) exploration rights application at Sishen, is grounds enough for the court to rebuke the award of the right, SIOC's lawyers argued on Tuesday.

Addressing the court on the second day of a review of the Department of Mineral Resources' (DMR's) granting of the right to ICT, which both SIOC and ArcelorMittal South Africa (Mittal) are seeking to overturn, Advocate Mark Antrobus SC argued that it was "common cause" that the documentation was a copy of parts of SIOC's title deed.

It was obtained "in haste" over the long weekend, ahead of the submission date of May 4, 2009, and were fraudulently copied and manipulated from the certified deeds included as part of its mining right application for the 21.4% of the Sishen mineral right not converted by Mittal.

ICT does not dispute the copy's inclusion, but asserts that the copy was illegally inserted into its application by a 'SIOC agent', in a bid to undermine its application. Antrobus described the ICT claim as being "wild speculation" and "so far fetched that it should be rejected".

Antrobus argues that the more plausible explanation is that, in its "last-minute" bid to submit an application ahead of the deadline, ICT obtained the portions of the title deed included from an employee of the DMR.

The miner adds that the absence of certified copies of the title deeds is in breach of regulations associated with legislation.

The department has provided no insight as to why it felt the ICT submission was competent.

The SIOC also avers that the application process was incompetent as SIOC's objection to ICT's application, as well as other critical documents, were not handed on to DMR deputy DG Jacinto Rocha, who was key to the decision making process.

SOIC argues that Rocha's decision had been based on "scant and inadequate" information that led to several errors that the court should set aside.

"He did not apply his mind to the making of the grant decision ... he took irrelevant considerations into account and failed to take relevant considerations into account."

The miner also contends that the eventual grant covered properties not applied for by ICT, while the signature on a Touchstone Drilling letter associated with the ICT application was a "forgery".