Fletcher N.O and Others v MEC, Department of Agriculture, Conservation, Environment and Tourism (1532/05) [2006] ZANWHC 14 (17 February 2006)

Fletcher N.O and Others v MEC, Department of Agriculture, Conservation, Environment and Tourism (1532/05) [2006] ZANWHC 14 (17 February 2006)

The court found that the applicants had made out a good case for review. The refusal to issue the import permits was based on a moratorium, but the respondent failed to provide the document or record evidencing this moratorium, despite repeated requests. The respondent did not file any opposing affidavit on the merits. The court held that the application was properly drafted in accordance with Rule 53 and that any confusion regarding the notice of motion was unfounded. The respondent's procedural objections were dismissed. The refusal to issue the permits was set aside, and the respondent was ordered to issue the permits and pay the costs of the application.

Citation
[2006] ZANWHC 14
Parties
Applicant: Elizabeth Cornelia Fletcher NO; Applicant: George Clayton Fletcher NO; Applicant: Elizabeth Cornelia Fletcher (Jnr) NO; Respondent: The MEC, Department of Agriculture, Conservation, Environment and Tourism
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 February 2006
Case Number
1532/05
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Application granted. Respondent's refusal set aside. Respondent ordered to issue permits and pay costs.
Judges
Gura
Legal Topics
Review of Administrative Action, Import Permit, Moratorium on Wildlife, Rule 53 Procedure
Administrative Law Environmental Law Review of Administrative Action Import Permit Moratorium on Wildlife Rule 53 Procedure

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

Elizabeth Cornelia Fletcher NO

Applicant

George Clayton Fletcher NO

Applicant

Elizabeth Cornelia Fletcher (Jnr) NO

Applicant

The MEC, Department of Agriculture, Conservation, Environment and Tourism

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's refusal to issue import permits for two elephants should be reviewed and set aside.
  2. 2 Whether the application complied with Rule 53 of the Uniform Rules of Court.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent was obliged to provide the record of proceedings and reasons for refusal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants had made out a good case for review. The refusal to issue the import permits was based on a moratorium, but the respondent failed to provide the document or record evidencing this moratorium, despite repeated requests. The respondent did not file any opposing affidavit on the merits. The court held that the application was properly drafted in accordance with Rule 53 and that any confusion regarding the notice of motion was unfounded. The respondent's procedural objections were dismissed. The refusal to issue the permits was set aside, and the respondent was ordered to issue the permits and pay the costs of the application.

Court Disposition

Application granted. Respondent's refusal set aside. Respondent ordered to issue permits and pay costs.

Orders

  • Respondent's refusal to issue the permit is set aside.
  • Respondent is ordered to issue a permit for the import by Sandhurst of two elephants from Sabi Sands Nature Reserve.