De Mona Eindomme CC v Department of Water Affairs (WT 24/11/2010) [2011] ZAWT 3 (19 May 2011)

De Mona Eindomme CC v Department of Water Affairs (WT 24/11/2010) [2011] ZAWT 3 (19 May 2011)

The Water Tribunal found that the Applicant lodged the appeal approximately one year late and failed to provide any reasonable or substantive explanation for the delay. The Tribunal was not convinced by the Applicant's argument that the change in ownership during the verification process justified condonation. The Tribunal held that the verification process under section 35 of the National Water Act is directed at the person claiming entitlement to water use, not necessarily the owner, and there is no legal obligation to restart the process upon a change in ownership. The Tribunal was not satisfied that the Applicant demonstrated prospects of success or that the delay was excusable. No...

Citation
[2011] ZAWT 3
Parties
Applicant: De Mona Eindomme CC; Respondent: Department of Water Affairs
Court
Water Tribunal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 May 2011
Case Number
WT 24/11/2010
Procedural Posture
Condonation Application / Ruling on Condonation
Outcome
Condonation for the late lodging of the appeal is refused. The file before the Water Tribunal is to be closed.
Judges
W Singo, H Thompson, A S Makhanya
Legal Topics
National Water Act, Condonation, Late Appeal, Verification of Water Use
Administrative Law Land and Property National Water Act Condonation Late Appeal Verification of Water Use

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

De Mona Eindomme CC

Applicant

Department of Water Affairs

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Condonation Application / Ruling on Condonation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is a good reason to condone the late lodging of an appeal by the Applicant against the Respondent's decision dated 23 September 2008.
  2. 2 Whether the Applicant provided a reasonable explanation for the delay in lodging the appeal.
  3. 3 Whether the Applicant has prospects of success in the appeal if condonation is granted.

Ratio Decidendi

The Water Tribunal found that the Applicant lodged the appeal approximately one year late and failed to provide any reasonable or substantive explanation for the delay. The Tribunal was not convinced by the Applicant's argument that the change in ownership during the verification process justified condonation. The Tribunal held that the verification process under section 35 of the National Water Act is directed at the person claiming entitlement to water use, not necessarily the owner, and there is no legal obligation to restart the process upon a change in ownership. The Tribunal was not satisfied that the Applicant demonstrated prospects of success or that the delay was excusable. No...

Court Disposition

Condonation for the late lodging of the appeal is refused. The file before the Water Tribunal is to be closed.

Orders

  • Condonation for the late lodging of the appeal by the Applicant is refused.
  • The file before the Water Tribunal is closed.