Federation For Sustainable Environment and Another v Minister of Water Affairs and Others (35672/12) [2014] ZAGPPHC 428 (9 June 2014)

Federation For Sustainable Environment and Another v Minister of Water Affairs and Others (35672/12) [2014] ZAGPPHC 428 (9 June 2014)

The court found that the applicants failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay in seeking leave to cross-appeal, particularly after being alerted to the procedural defect in January 2013. The urgency of the proceedings and ignorance of the rules by legal representatives did not constitute good cause. The court held that there were no reasonable prospects of success on the merits, as the relief sought in the cross-appeal was against parties not involved in the appeal and attempted to introduce new parties and issues not raised in the main application. The principle that condonation is discretionary and not automatically granted due to attorney error was applied. The public...

Citation
[2014] ZAGPPHC 428
Parties
Applicant: The Federation for Sustainable Environment; Applicant: The 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 Water Sector Regulation and Use; 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
9 June 2014
Case Number
35672/12
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Condonation and Leave to Cross Appeal After Judgment and Appeal Proceedings
Outcome
Application for condonation and leave to cross-appeal dismissed. No order as to costs.
Judges
N.M. Mavundla
Legal Topics
Condonation, Leave to Cross Appeal, Rule 49, Right of Access to Water, Separation of Powers
Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Condonation Leave to Cross Appeal Rule 49 Right of Access to Water Separation of Powers

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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Federation for Sustainable Environment

Applicant

The 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 Water Sector Regulation and Use

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

Leave to Appeal / Application for Condonation and Leave to Cross Appeal After Judgment and Appeal Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have furnished a satisfactory explanation for the delay in seeking leave to cross-appeal.
  2. 2 Whether there are reasonable prospects of success on the merits of the cross-appeal.
  3. 3 Whether condonation for the late filing of the cross-appeal should be granted.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay in seeking leave to cross-appeal, particularly after being alerted to the procedural defect in January 2013. The urgency of the proceedings and ignorance of the rules by legal representatives did not constitute good cause. The court held that there were no reasonable prospects of success on the merits, as the relief sought in the cross-appeal was against parties not involved in the appeal and attempted to introduce new parties and issues not raised in the main application. The principle that condonation is discretionary and not automatically granted due to attorney error was applied. The public...

Court Disposition

Application for condonation and leave to cross-appeal dismissed. No order as to costs.

Orders

  • The application for condonation and leave to cross-appeal is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs is made.