Jooste and Another v Member of the Executive Council for Local Government Environmental Affairs & Development Planning: Western Cape and Others (637/23) [2024] ZASCA 138 (11 October 2024)

Jooste and Another v Member of the Executive Council for Local Government Environmental Affairs & Development Planning: Western Cape and Others (637/23) [2024] ZASCA 138 (11 October 2024)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the settlement order of 18 October 2019, made an order of court, resolved all disputes between SAFAM and the State respondents regarding the environmental authorisation and waste management licence. The order is binding and final, and the appellants did not seek to challenge or set aside the order. As a result, the issues raised by the appellants are res judicata and cannot be revisited. The procedural complaints regarding condonation and public participation were subsumed by the settlement order, which provided directions for the authorisation process. The appeal was found to be without merit, and the appellants were held bound by the settlement...

Citation
[2024] ZASCA 138
Parties
Appellant: Hanneré Cecile Jooste; Appellant: Jan Louis Jordaan; Respondent: Member of the Executive Council for Local Government Environmental Affairs & Development Planning: Western Cape; Respondent: Director: Development Management (Region 1) of the Department of Environmental Affairs & Development Planning: Western Cape; Respondent: Director: Waste Management Department of Environmental Affairs & Development Planning: Western Cape; Respondent: South African Farm Assured Meat Group CC; Respondent: Hendrik Johannes Swanepoel de Bod NO; Respondent: Johannes Petrus du Bois NO; Respondent: Daniёl Jacobus van Staden NO
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 October 2024
Case Number
637/23
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Western Cape Division of the High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Molemela, Ponnan, Keightly, Baartman, Dippenaar
Legal Topics
Environmental Authorisation, Retrospective Authorisation, Res Judicata, Public Participation, Costs Award, Condonation
Environmental Law Administrative Law Environmental Authorisation Retrospective Authorisation Res Judicata Public Participation Costs Award Condonation

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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hanneré Cecile Jooste

Appellant

Jan Louis Jordaan

Appellant

Member of the Executive Council for Local Government Environmental Affairs & Development Planning: Western Cape

Respondent

Director: Development Management (Region 1) of the Department of Environmental Affairs & Development Planning: Western Cape

Respondent

Director: Waste Management Department of Environmental Affairs & Development Planning: Western Cape

Respondent

South African Farm Assured Meat Group CC

Respondent

Hendrik Johannes Swanepoel de Bod NO

Respondent

Johannes Petrus du Bois NO

Respondent

Daniёl Jacobus van Staden NO

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Western Cape Division of the High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the settlement order of 18 October 2019 precludes the appellants from challenging the environmental authorisation granted to SAFAM.
  2. 2 Whether SAFAM unlawfully commenced Listed Activities 8 and 28 in breach of section 24F of NEMA.
  3. 3 Whether the MEC's condonation decision under section 47C of NEMA was procedurally unfair due to lack of notice and opportunity to make representations.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the settlement order of 18 October 2019, made an order of court, resolved all disputes between SAFAM and the State respondents regarding the environmental authorisation and waste management licence. The order is binding and final, and the appellants did not seek to challenge or set aside the order. As a result, the issues raised by the appellants are res judicata and cannot be revisited. The procedural complaints regarding condonation and public participation were subsumed by the settlement order, which provided directions for the authorisation process. The appeal was found to be without merit, and the appellants were held bound by the settlement...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The appellants are directed to pay the costs of appeal of the fourth to seventh respondents, including the costs of two counsel, where employed.