Ingrain SA Proprietary Ltd v Olowa N.O and Others [2023] ZAGPPHC 401; 8555/2022 (7 June 2023)

Ingrain SA Proprietary Ltd v Olowa N.O and Others [2023] ZAGPPHC 401; 8555/2022 (7 June 2023)

The court found that the applicant's activities do not constitute the production or recovery of hydrochloric acid as envisaged by sub-category 7.2 of Government Notice 893 of 2013. The applicant is engaged in food production, not the inorganic chemicals industry, and does not manufacture or recover hydrochloric acid. The use of hydrochloric acid as a reagent in agri-processing does not trigger the listed activity requiring an Atmospheric Emission Licence. The compliance notice and subsequent decisions by the respondents were based on an incorrect interpretation of the legislative framework and are reviewable administrative actions under PAJA. The draft consent order, agreed upon by the...

Citation
[2023] ZAGPPHC 401
Parties
Applicant: Ingrain SA Proprietary Ltd; Respondent: Abimbola Olowa N.O.; Respondent: Gauteng Department of Environment, Agriculture and Rural Development; Respondent: Member of the Executive Council for Economic Development, Environment, Agriculture and Rural Development, Gauteng; Respondent: Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 June 2023
Case Number
8555/2022
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Final Judgment on Review and Consent Order
Outcome
Application granted; draft consent order made an order of court.
Judges
PA Van Niekerk
Legal Topics
Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Air Quality Act Compliance, Judicial Review of Administrative Action, Listed Activities Interpretation
Administrative Law Environmental Law Promotion of Administrative Justice Act Air Quality Act Compliance Judicial Review of Administrative Action Listed Activities Interpretation

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ingrain SA Proprietary Ltd

Applicant

Abimbola Olowa N.O.

Respondent

Gauteng Department of Environment, Agriculture and Rural Development

Respondent

Member of the Executive Council for Economic Development, Environment, Agriculture and Rural Development, Gauteng

Respondent

Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Final Judgment on Review and Consent Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the use of hydrochloric acid by the applicant constitutes a listed activity under section 21 of the Air Quality Act.
  2. 2 Whether the compliance notice and subsequent decisions by the respondents are reviewable administrative actions under PAJA.
  3. 3 Whether the interpretation and application of sub-category 7.2 of Government Notice 893 of 2013 was correct.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's activities do not constitute the production or recovery of hydrochloric acid as envisaged by sub-category 7.2 of Government Notice 893 of 2013. The applicant is engaged in food production, not the inorganic chemicals industry, and does not manufacture or recover hydrochloric acid. The use of hydrochloric acid as a reagent in agri-processing does not trigger the listed activity requiring an Atmospheric Emission Licence. The compliance notice and subsequent decisions by the respondents were based on an incorrect interpretation of the legislative framework and are reviewable administrative actions under PAJA. The draft consent order, agreed upon by the...

Court Disposition

Application granted; draft consent order made an order of court.

Orders

  • The decisions of the First, Second, and Fourth Respondents are reviewed, declared unlawful, and set aside.
  • The draft consent order marked 'X', initialled and dated by the judge, is made an order of court.