Eye of Africa Developments (Proprietary) Limited v Shear and Others (809/2013) [2014] ZASCA 100 (19 August 2014)

Eye of Africa Developments (Proprietary) Limited v Shear and Others (809/2013) [2014] ZASCA 100 (19 August 2014)

The Supreme Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on the basis that, in terms of section 21A of the Supreme Court Act 59 of 1959, any judgment or order would have no practical effect or result. The appellant conceded that there was no longer any draw-down on underground water and that sufficient grey-water was available for irrigation, with the environmental authorisation remaining in force. The concession was made at the commencement of proceedings after questions from the bench. The court found that the issues raised in the heads of argument were sufficiently involved to justify the costs of two counsel. The order of the high court remains extant.

Citation
[2014] ZASCA 100
Parties
Appellant: Eye of Africa Developments (Proprietary) Limited; Respondent: Shear, Caroline Nicola; Respondent: The Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs; Respondent: The Regional Head, Gauteng Region Department of Water Affairs and Environmental Affairs; Respondent: The Department of Water Affairs and Environmental Affairs; Respondent: L J Lekale N.O.
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 August 2014
Case Number
809/2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; appellant to pay respondent's costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Navsa, Tshiqi, Swain, Mbha, Dambuza
Legal Topics
Practical Effect of Order, Costs Award, Environmental Authorisation, Use of Grey Water
Environmental Law Civil Procedure Practical Effect of Order Costs Award Environmental Authorisation Use of Grey Water

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eye of Africa Developments (Proprietary) Limited

Appellant

Shear, Caroline Nicola

Respondent

The Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs

Respondent

The Regional Head, Gauteng Region Department of Water Affairs and Environmental Affairs

Respondent

The Department of Water Affairs and Environmental Affairs

Respondent

L J Lekale N.O.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appeal would have any practical effect or result in light of the current circumstances.
  2. 2 Whether the costs of two counsel are justified given the complexity of the issues raised.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on the basis that, in terms of section 21A of the Supreme Court Act 59 of 1959, any judgment or order would have no practical effect or result. The appellant conceded that there was no longer any draw-down on underground water and that sufficient grey-water was available for irrigation, with the environmental authorisation remaining in force. The concession was made at the commencement of proceedings after questions from the bench. The court found that the issues raised in the heads of argument were sufficiently involved to justify the costs of two counsel. The order of the high court remains extant.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; appellant to pay respondent's costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed on the basis of section 21A of the Supreme Court Act 59 of 1959, as the judgment or order sought will have no practical effect.
  • The appellant is to pay the respondent’s costs, including the costs of two counsel.