Federation for Sustainable Environment and Others v Minister of Water Affairs and Others (35672/12) [2012] ZAGPPHC 170 (15 August 2012)

Federation for Sustainable Environment and Others v Minister of Water Affairs and Others (35672/12) [2012] ZAGPPHC 170 (15 August 2012)

The court held that the application for leave to appeal against the interim execution order should be dismissed. The respondents failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or procedural impropriety sufficient to justify leave to appeal. The correction of the previous order was within the court's inherent powers and did not prejudice the respondents. The right to access potable water is constitutionally protected, and the ongoing water crisis justified immediate execution of the order. The respondents' arguments regarding their municipal status and inability to comply were political rather than legal obstacles and could be resolved through intergovernmental cooperation. The interests of...

Citation
[2012] ZAGPPHC 170
Parties
Applicant: Federation for Sustainable Environment; Applicant: Silobela Concerned Community; Respondent: Minister of Water Affairs; Respondent: Director General: Water Affairs; Respondent: Acting Chief Director General of Water Affairs Mpumalanga; Respondent: Director of Water Affairs: Mpumalanga; Respondent: MEC Co-operative Governance and Traditional Affairs, Mpumalanga; Respondent: Acting Executive Mayor: The Gert Sibanda District Municipality; Respondent: Municipal Manager: The Gert Sibanda District Municipality; Respondent: Mayor: The Albert Luthuli Local Municipality; Respondent: Municipal Manager: The Albert Luthuli Local Municipality; Respondent: Komati Catchment Agency
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 August 2012
Case Number
35672/12
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Interim Execution Order Under Rule 49(11)
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal against the interim execution order is dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
N M Mavundla
Legal Topics
Right of Access to Water, Interim Execution Orders, Leave to Appeal, Rule 49 11, Section 27 Constitution, Municipal Service Delivery
Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Administrative Law Right of Access to Water Interim Execution Orders Leave to Appeal Rule 49 11 Section 27 Constitution +1 more

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 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Federation for Sustainable Environment

Applicant

Silobela Concerned Community

Applicant

Minister of Water Affairs

Respondent

Director General: Water Affairs

Respondent

Acting Chief Director General of Water Affairs Mpumalanga

Respondent

Director of Water Affairs: Mpumalanga

Respondent

MEC Co-operative Governance and Traditional Affairs, Mpumalanga

Respondent

Acting Executive Mayor: The Gert Sibanda District Municipality

Respondent

Municipal Manager: The Gert Sibanda District Municipality

Respondent

Mayor: The Albert Luthuli Local Municipality

Respondent

Municipal Manager: The Albert Luthuli Local Municipality

Respondent

Komati Catchment Agency

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Interim Execution Order Under Rule 49(11)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted against an interim execution order under Rule 49(11).
  2. 2 Whether the correction of the previous order by the court was permissible after the noting of appeal.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents, as district municipalities, can be compelled to provide potable water when not designated as water service authorities.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the application for leave to appeal against the interim execution order should be dismissed. The respondents failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or procedural impropriety sufficient to justify leave to appeal. The correction of the previous order was within the court's inherent powers and did not prejudice the respondents. The right to access potable water is constitutionally protected, and the ongoing water crisis justified immediate execution of the order. The respondents' arguments regarding their municipal status and inability to comply were political rather than legal obstacles and could be resolved through intergovernmental cooperation. The interests of...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal against the interim execution order is dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
  • The respondents are ordered to pay the costs of the application, including the costs of two counsel.