SA Predator Breeders Association and Others v Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (72/10) [2010] ZASCA 151; [2011] 2 All SA 529 (SCA) (29 November 2010)

SA Predator Breeders Association and Others v Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (72/10) [2010] ZASCA 151; [2011] 2 All SA 529 (SCA) (29 November 2010)

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that regulation 24(2), as applied to captive-bred lions, was irrational and invalid. The Minister's decision to impose a 24-month prohibition on hunting after rehabilitation lacked any scientific or factual basis and misinterpreted the recommendations of the expert panel, which did not advocate for a delay period after self-sufficiency. The evidence showed that successful rehabilitation of captive-bred lions was speculative at best, and the 24-month period was arbitrary. The Minister failed to establish a rational connection between the regulation and the legislative objectives of the Biodiversity Act. The Court held that while public opinion and ethical...

Citation
[2010] ZASCA 151
Parties
Appellant: SA Predator Breeders Association; Appellant: M C Mostert; Appellant: D Cilliers; Respondent: Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 November 2010
Case Number
72/10
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Free State High Court; Judgment Delivered
Outcome
Appeal succeeded in part; regulation 24(2) declared invalid as applied to captive-bred lions; costs awarded to appellants including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Heher, Snyders, Bosielo, Shongwe, R Pillay
Legal Topics
National Environmental Management Biodiversity Act, Rationality Review, Regulatory Consultation, Hunting of Captive Bred Lions, Scientific Authority Composition
Environmental Law Administrative Law National Environmental Management Biodiversity Act Rationality Review Regulatory Consultation Hunting of Captive Bred Lions Scientific Authority Composition

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SA Predator Breeders Association

Appellant

M C Mostert

Appellant

D Cilliers

Appellant

Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Free State High Court; Judgment Delivered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether regulation 24(2) of the Threatened or Protected Species Regulations, as applied to captive-bred lions, is rational and valid.
  2. 2 Whether the Minister's decision-making process in formulating the regulations complied with statutory requirements for consultation and rationality.
  3. 3 Whether the composition of the Scientific Authority under regulation 60 is irrational for excluding direct industry representation.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that regulation 24(2), as applied to captive-bred lions, was irrational and invalid. The Minister's decision to impose a 24-month prohibition on hunting after rehabilitation lacked any scientific or factual basis and misinterpreted the recommendations of the expert panel, which did not advocate for a delay period after self-sufficiency. The evidence showed that successful rehabilitation of captive-bred lions was speculative at best, and the 24-month period was arbitrary. The Minister failed to establish a rational connection between the regulation and the legislative objectives of the Biodiversity Act. The Court held that while public opinion and ethical...

Court Disposition

Appeal succeeded in part; regulation 24(2) declared invalid as applied to captive-bred lions; costs awarded to appellants including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • It is declared that the inclusion of the lion (panthera leo) within the definition of 'listed large predator' in regulation 1 of the Threatened or Protected Species Regulations, as amended, renders regulation 24(2), in its present form, invalid insofar as it applies to a 'put and take' animal that is a lion.
  • The relief claimed in respect of the definition of 'put and take animal' and regulation 60 is refused. No order is made in respect of regulation 71.