African Centre for Biodiversity NPC v Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries and Others [2023] ZAGPPHC 520; 27524/2017 (27 June 2023)

African Centre for Biodiversity NPC v Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries and Others [2023] ZAGPPHC 520; 27524/2017 (27 June 2023)

The court held that the applicant failed to establish grounds for review under PAJA. The Executive Council complied with section 5(1)(a) of the GMO Act and was not required to call for an independent environmental impact assessment, as the activity was not listed under NEMA and the evidence did not indicate a threat to indigenous species or the environment. The precautionary principle, while relevant to environmental law, is not directly applicable in review proceedings, which focus on lawfulness, reasonableness, and procedural fairness. Public participation requirements were met through newspaper notices as prescribed by the GMO regulations, and any procedural unfairness was cured by the...

Citation
[2023] ZAGPPHC 520
Parties
Applicant: African Centre for Biodiversity NPC; Respondent: Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries; Respondent: Director-General: Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries; Respondent: Appeal Board: Genetically Modified Organisms; Respondent: Executive Council for Genetically Modified Organisms; Respondent: Monsanto South Africa (Pty) Ltd
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 June 2023
Case Number
27524/2017
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment After Hearing on 8 February 2023
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Judges
R.G Tolmay
Legal Topics
Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Genetically Modified Organisms Act, Precautionary Principle, Procedural Fairness, Adequacy of Reasons, Public Participation
Administrative Law Environmental Law Promotion of Administrative Justice Act Genetically Modified Organisms Act Precautionary Principle Procedural Fairness Adequacy of Reasons Public Participation

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 6 Authorities cited 24 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

African Centre for Biodiversity NPC

Applicant

Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries

Respondent

Director-General: Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries

Respondent

Appeal Board: Genetically Modified Organisms

Respondent

Executive Council for Genetically Modified Organisms

Respondent

Monsanto South Africa (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment After Hearing on 8 February 2023

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the decisions to approve the general release of MON 87460 maize should be reviewed and set aside under PAJA.
  2. 2 Whether the Executive Council complied with section 5(1)(a) of the GMO Act.
  3. 3 Whether the decision was procedurally fair, including adequacy of public participation.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the applicant failed to establish grounds for review under PAJA. The Executive Council complied with section 5(1)(a) of the GMO Act and was not required to call for an independent environmental impact assessment, as the activity was not listed under NEMA and the evidence did not indicate a threat to indigenous species or the environment. The precautionary principle, while relevant to environmental law, is not directly applicable in review proceedings, which focus on lawfulness, reasonableness, and procedural fairness. Public participation requirements were met through newspaper notices as prescribed by the GMO regulations, and any procedural unfairness was cured by the...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.