Sasol Oil (Pty) Ltd and Another v Metcalfe NO (17363/03) [2004] ZAGPHC 25; [2006] 2 All SA 329 (W); 2004 (5) SA 161 (W) (19 March 2004)

Sasol Oil (Pty) Ltd and Another v Metcalfe NO (17363/03) [2004] ZAGPHC 25; [2006] 2 All SA 329 (W); 2004 (5) SA 161 (W) (19 March 2004)

The court held that the departmental guidelines were not ultra vires the Environment Conservation Act, as they did not constitute administrative action with direct legal effect. However, the respondent erred in believing she had the power to regulate the construction and erection of filling stations per se, when her authority was limited to matters relating to the storage and handling of hazardous substances. The respondent's decisions were taken for reasons not authorised by the empowering provision and based on irrelevant considerations, rendering them reviewable and liable to be set aside under PAJA. The review application was brought within a reasonable time, and the applicants were...

Citation
[2004] ZAGPHC 25
Parties
Applicant: Sasol Oil (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Bright Sun Developments CC; Respondent: Mary Metcalfe N.O.
Court
High Courts - Gauteng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 March 2004
Case Number
17363/03
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application for a declarator that the guidelines are ultra vires is dismissed; the respondent's decisions to deny authorisation are reviewed and set aside; each party to pay their own costs.
Judges
Willis
Legal Topics
Environment Conservation Act, Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Departmental Guidelines, Judicial Review, Ultra Vires, Environmental Authorisation
Administrative Law Environmental Law Environment Conservation Act Promotion of Administrative Justice Act Departmental Guidelines Judicial Review Ultra Vires Environmental Authorisation

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sasol Oil (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Bright Sun Developments CC

Applicant

Mary Metcalfe N.O.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the departmental guidelines for EIA authorisation are ultra vires the Environment Conservation Act and invalid.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's decisions to deny EIA authorisation for the construction of a filling station were lawful and should be set aside.
  3. 3 Whether the application for review was brought within the time limits prescribed by applicable legislation.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the departmental guidelines were not ultra vires the Environment Conservation Act, as they did not constitute administrative action with direct legal effect. However, the respondent erred in believing she had the power to regulate the construction and erection of filling stations per se, when her authority was limited to matters relating to the storage and handling of hazardous substances. The respondent's decisions were taken for reasons not authorised by the empowering provision and based on irrelevant considerations, rendering them reviewable and liable to be set aside under PAJA. The review application was brought within a reasonable time, and the applicants were...

Court Disposition

Application for a declarator that the guidelines are ultra vires is dismissed; the respondent's decisions to deny authorisation are reviewed and set aside; each party to pay their own costs.

Orders

  • The application for a declarator in terms of prayer 1 of the notice of motion that the guidelines of the Department are ultra vires is dismissed.
  • The decision dated 28 April 2003 in which the respondent upheld the Department's decision to deny authorisation to the second applicant in respect of the construction of a filling station at Erf 4025, Rand Park Ridge Extension 78 is reviewed and set aside.