Avgold Limited and Another v Minister of Water and Sanitation and Others (039650 /2023) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1892 (27 October 2023)

Avgold Limited and Another v Minister of Water and Sanitation and Others (039650 /2023) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1892 (27 October 2023)

The court found that the Directive issued by the Department of Water and Sanitation was procedurally unfair, as the applicants were not informed of the true reasons for its issuance and were not afforded a reasonable opportunity to make representations. The urgency of the matter was established when the respondents refused to extend the compliance period, and the applicants demonstrated that immediate compliance would result in severe and disproportionate harm, including flooding of the mine, health and safety risks, cessation of mining operations, and mass retrenchments. The court held that the requirements for an urgent interim interdict were met and that the suspension of the Directive...

Citation
[2023] ZAGPPHC 1892
Parties
Applicant: Avgold Limited; Applicant: Harmony Gold Mining Company Limited; Respondent: Minister of Water and Sanitation; Respondent: Director-General Department of Water and Sanitation; Respondent: Provincial Head, Free State Department of Water and Sanitation; Respondent: Director: Compliance and Enforcement for the Free State
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 October 2023
Case Number
039650 /2023
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Interim Interdict Application
Outcome
Interim interdict granted; operation of the Directive suspended pending appeal or until 30 June 2023, whichever occurs first.
Judges
Raulinga
Legal Topics
National Water Act, Procedural Fairness, Interim Interdict, Administrative Action Review, Urgency, Suspension of Directive
Administrative Law Environmental Law Civil Procedure National Water Act Procedural Fairness Interim Interdict Administrative Action Review Urgency +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Avgold Limited

Applicant

Harmony Gold Mining Company Limited

Applicant

Minister of Water and Sanitation

Respondent

Director-General Department of Water and Sanitation

Respondent

Provincial Head, Free State Department of Water and Sanitation

Respondent

Director: Compliance and Enforcement for the Free State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Interim Interdict Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Directive issued by the Department of Water and Sanitation was procedurally fair and reasonable.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants met the requirements for an urgent interim interdict.
  3. 3 Whether the suspension of the Directive is justified pending appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Directive issued by the Department of Water and Sanitation was procedurally unfair, as the applicants were not informed of the true reasons for its issuance and were not afforded a reasonable opportunity to make representations. The urgency of the matter was established when the respondents refused to extend the compliance period, and the applicants demonstrated that immediate compliance would result in severe and disproportionate harm, including flooding of the mine, health and safety risks, cessation of mining operations, and mass retrenchments. The court held that the requirements for an urgent interim interdict were met and that the suspension of the Directive...

Court Disposition

Interim interdict granted; operation of the Directive suspended pending appeal or until 30 June 2023, whichever occurs first.

Orders

  • The operation of the Directive issued by the second respondent to the first applicant dated 30 March 2023 is suspended until and including 30 June 2023, alternatively until the appeal lodged by the applicants to the Water Tribunal under section 148(1)(a) and (j) of the National Water Act, 36 of 1998 has been finally...
  • The respondents who opposed this application shall pay the costs of this application jointly and severally, the one paying the other/s to be absolved, including the cost of two counsel.