Gannet Works (Pty) Ltd and Others v Middleton Sue NO and Another (492/2023) [2024] ZASCA 112; 2024 (6) SA 57 (SCA); 2024 (2) SACR 588 (SCA) (16 July 2024)

Gannet Works (Pty) Ltd and Others v Middleton Sue NO and Another (492/2023) [2024] ZASCA 112; 2024 (6) SA 57 (SCA); 2024 (2) SACR 588 (SCA) (16 July 2024)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Marine Living Resources Act and its regulations not only specify the type of fishing activity but also the method to be used. The definition of 'angling' in the regulations, deemed included in the Act, requires recreational fishing by manually operating a rod, reel, and line. The use of remote-controlled motorised equipment such as drones falls outside the scope of 'manual operation' and is therefore not authorised for recreational angling. The public notice issued by the Deputy Director-General was a lawful clarification of the regulatory position and did not amount to an amendment of the Act. The appellants failed to establish that the use of...

Citation
[2024] ZASCA 112
Parties
Appellant: Gannet Works (Pty) Ltd; Appellant: IARC CC; Appellant: Unmanned SA (Pty) Ltd; Appellant: CDS Angling Suppliers CC; Appellant: CEG Projects (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Middleton Sue NO; Respondent: Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
16 July 2024
Case Number
492/2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Mokgohloa, Hughes, Meyer, Weiner, Coppin
Legal Topics
Marine Living Resources Act, Statutory Interpretation, Recreational Fishing Permits, Definition of Angling, Administrative Notice, Lawful Methods of Fishing
Environmental Law Marine Living Resources Act Statutory Interpretation Recreational Fishing Permits Definition of Angling Administrative Notice Lawful Methods of Fishing

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gannet Works (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

IARC CC

Appellant

Unmanned SA (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

CDS Angling Suppliers CC

Appellant

CEG Projects (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Middleton Sue NO

Respondent

Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the use of remote-controlled motorised equipment such as drones for recreational angling is authorised by the Marine Living Resources Act and its regulations.
  2. 2 Whether the public notice prohibiting such equipment issued by the Deputy Director-General is lawful and of legal effect.
  3. 3 Whether the definition of 'angling' in the regulations is deemed to be included in the Act and excludes the use of drones.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Marine Living Resources Act and its regulations not only specify the type of fishing activity but also the method to be used. The definition of 'angling' in the regulations, deemed included in the Act, requires recreational fishing by manually operating a rod, reel, and line. The use of remote-controlled motorised equipment such as drones falls outside the scope of 'manual operation' and is therefore not authorised for recreational angling. The public notice issued by the Deputy Director-General was a lawful clarification of the regulatory position and did not amount to an amendment of the Act. The appellants failed to establish that the use of...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.