Magaliesburg Land Owners Forum and Another v MEC: Department of Economic Environment, Conservation & Tourism and Others (1819/2012) [2014] ZANWHC 66 (16 October 2014)

Magaliesburg Land Owners Forum and Another v MEC: Department of Economic Environment, Conservation & Tourism and Others (1819/2012) [2014] ZANWHC 66 (16 October 2014)

The court found that the applicants' evidence that the MEC did not apply her mind to the appeal was not satisfactorily rebutted. The second respondent's affidavit did not demonstrate that the MEC herself considered the grounds of appeal, and there was no indication that the decision was properly reasoned. The...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2014] ZANWHC 66
Parties
Applicant: Magaliesburg Land Owners Forum; Applicant: Gerry Comninos; Respondent: MEC: Department of Economic Environment, Conservation & Tourism; Respondent: Steven Mukhola N.O.; Respondent: NMS Properties (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: NMS Communications (Pty) Ltd
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
16 October 2014
Case Number
1819/2012
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Costs Determination After Matter Became Moot
Outcome
Application for costs granted in favour of the applicants.
Judges
A A Landman
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Environmental Authorisation, Failure to Apply Mind, Costs Award, National Environmental Management Act
Administrative Law Environmental Law Judicial Review Environmental Authorisation Failure to Apply Mind Costs Award National Environmental Management Act

Source-derived case record

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

Magaliesburg Land Owners Forum

Applicant

Gerry Comninos

Applicant

MEC: Department of Economic Environment, Conservation & Tourism

Respondent

Steven Mukhola N.O.

Respondent

NMS Properties (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

NMS Communications (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Costs Determination After Matter Became Moot

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to costs after the matter became moot due to expiry of the environmental authorisation.
  2. 2 Whether the MEC properly applied her mind to the appeal and grounds raised by the applicants.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents acted unreasonably in opposing the costs application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants' evidence that the MEC did not apply her mind to the appeal was not satisfactorily rebutted. The second respondent's affidavit did not demonstrate that the MEC herself considered the grounds of appeal, and there was no indication that the decision was properly reasoned. The respondents' argument that the matter became moot did not absolve them from liability for costs, as the applicants' review would likely have succeeded on the merits. The applicants did not abuse the process, and the respondents' refusal to tender costs was unjustified. Accordingly, costs should follow the result, and the first respondent was ordered to pay the costs of the...

Court Disposition

Application for costs granted in favour of the applicants.

Orders

  • The first respondent is to pay the costs of the application including the costs of the argument on costs.