Federation for Sustainable Environment and Another v Minister of Water Affairs and Others (35672/12) [2012] ZAGPPHC 145 (3 August 2012)

Federation for Sustainable Environment and Another v Minister of Water Affairs and Others (35672/12) [2012] ZAGPPHC 145 (3 August 2012)

The court found that the omission of the word 'not' in order 3 of the 26 July 2012 judgment was a patent error, as the intention of the judgment was to ensure continued compliance with the original order pending the finalization of any appeal. The error resulted in a conflict between the order and the reasons provided in the judgment, particularly regarding the protection of the community's rights to water services. In terms of Rule 42(1)(b), the court was empowered to correct such an error. The order was accordingly varied to reflect that the operation and execution of paragraphs 2 to 5 of the order granted on 10 July 2012 are not suspended, and the relevant respondents are required to...

Citation
[2012] ZAGPPHC 145
Parties
Applicant: Federation for Sustainable Environment; Applicant: Silobela Concerned Community; Respondent: Minister of Water Affairs; Respondent: Director General: Water Affairs; Respondent: Acting Chief Director General of Water Affairs Mpumalanga; Respondent: Director of Water Affairs: Mpumalanga; Respondent: MEC Co-operative Governance and Traditional Affairs, Mpumalanga; Respondent: Acting Executive Mayor: The Gert Sibanda District Municipality; Respondent: Municipal Manager: The Gert Sibanda District Municipality; Respondent: Mayor: The Albert Luthuli Local Municipality; Respondent: Municipal Manager: The Albert Luthuli Local Municipality; Respondent: Komati Catchment Agency
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 August 2012
Case Number
35672/12
Procedural Posture
Variation Application / Order Varying Previous Judgment
Outcome
Order varied to correct patent error; operation and execution of previous order not suspended pending appeal; respondents ordered to comply and pay costs.
Judges
N M Mavundla
Legal Topics
Rule 49 11 Suspension of Orders, Rule 42 1 B Variation of Orders, Water Service Delivery, Jojo Tank Compliance
Civil Procedure Administrative Law Rule 49 11 Suspension of Orders Rule 42 1 B Variation of Orders Water Service Delivery Jojo Tank Compliance

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Federation for Sustainable Environment

Applicant

Silobela Concerned Community

Applicant

Minister of Water Affairs

Respondent

Director General: Water Affairs

Respondent

Acting Chief Director General of Water Affairs Mpumalanga

Respondent

Director of Water Affairs: Mpumalanga

Respondent

MEC Co-operative Governance and Traditional Affairs, Mpumalanga

Respondent

Acting Executive Mayor: The Gert Sibanda District Municipality

Respondent

Municipal Manager: The Gert Sibanda District Municipality

Respondent

Mayor: The Albert Luthuli Local Municipality

Respondent

Municipal Manager: The Albert Luthuli Local Municipality

Respondent

Komati Catchment Agency

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Variation Application / Order Varying Previous Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the omission of the word 'not' in order 3 of the 26 July 2012 judgment constitutes a patent error requiring correction.
  2. 2 Whether the suspension of the operation and execution of the previous order should be uplifted pending finalization of appeals.
  3. 3 Whether the rights of the affected community require immediate compliance with the original order despite pending appeals.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the omission of the word 'not' in order 3 of the 26 July 2012 judgment was a patent error, as the intention of the judgment was to ensure continued compliance with the original order pending the finalization of any appeal. The error resulted in a conflict between the order and the reasons provided in the judgment, particularly regarding the protection of the community's rights to water services. In terms of Rule 42(1)(b), the court was empowered to correct such an error. The order was accordingly varied to reflect that the operation and execution of paragraphs 2 to 5 of the order granted on 10 July 2012 are not suspended, and the relevant respondents are required to...

Court Disposition

Order varied to correct patent error; operation and execution of previous order not suspended pending appeal; respondents ordered to comply and pay costs.

Orders

  • Order 3 of the judgment delivered on 26 July 2012 is varied to read that the operation and execution of paragraphs 2 to 5 of the order granted on 10 July 2012 are not suspended pending finalization of any appeal.
  • Costs of the application for leave to appeal are costs in the appeal.