Wind Farm Concerned Group and Others v Minister Of Water And Environmental Affairs Of South Africa and Others (2809/2012) [2014] ZAECPEHC 40 (12 June 2014)

Wind Farm Concerned Group and Others v Minister Of Water And Environmental Affairs Of South Africa and Others (2809/2012) [2014] ZAECPEHC 40 (12 June 2014)

The court found that the grounds for leave to appeal were generalised and failed to specify the basis for alleged errors. The reasoning in the Rule 30 application was not challenged, and the applicants' attempt to introduce evidentiary material by filing notice was correctly found to be irregular. The striking out of scandalous, vexatious, inadmissible, and irrelevant material was justified, as the applicants conceded the guidelines relied upon were not binding or relevant. The court correctly applied the law of evidence and procedural rules, and there was no reasonable prospect that another court would reach a different conclusion. On the merits, the applicants failed to demonstrate that...

Citation
[2014] ZAECPEHC 40
Parties
Applicant: The Wind Farm Concerned Group; Applicant: Petrus Johannes Vermaak; Applicant: Robert C.A. Bell; Applicant: Jennifer Bell; Applicant: Lester De Beer; Applicant: George Chamberlain; Applicant: Gerhard Saayman; Applicant: Carel Scheepers; Applicant: Lerischia Scheepers; Applicant: Shirley Wagner-Welsh; Applicant: Johan C Wagner; Applicant: Deon P Gouws; Applicant: Deal Making Investments (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Jan Louw Jansen; Applicant: Jan Burger Pienaar; Applicant: David Lister; Applicant: Virginia Lister; Respondent: Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs of South Africa; Respondent: Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality; Respondent: Metrowind (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Rubicept (Pty) Ltd
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 June 2014
Case Number
2809/2012
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment and Cost Order in Review Proceedings
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
G Goosen
Legal Topics
National Environmental Management Act, Public Participation, Locus Standi, Rule 30 Irregular Step, Striking Out Scandalous Matter, Promotion of Administrative Justice Act
Environmental Law Civil Procedure Administrative Law National Environmental Management Act Public Participation Locus Standi Rule 30 Irregular Step Striking Out Scandalous Matter +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 6 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Wind Farm Concerned Group

Applicant

Petrus Johannes Vermaak

Applicant

Robert C.A. Bell

Applicant

Jennifer Bell

Applicant

Lester De Beer

Applicant

George Chamberlain

Applicant

Gerhard Saayman

Applicant

Carel Scheepers

Applicant

Lerischia Scheepers

Applicant

Shirley Wagner-Welsh

Applicant

Johan C Wagner

Applicant

Deon P Gouws

Applicant

Deal Making Investments (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Jan Louw Jansen

Applicant

Jan Burger Pienaar

Applicant

David Lister

Applicant

Virginia Lister

Applicant

Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs of South Africa

Respondent

Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality

Respondent

Metrowind (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Rubicept (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment and Cost Order in Review Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is a reasonable prospect of success on appeal regarding the Rule 30 application.
  2. 2 Whether the striking out of scandalous, vexatious, inadmissible, and irrelevant material was correctly decided.
  3. 3 Whether the court erred in its findings on the merits of the review application, including locus standi and application of NEMA and PAJA.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the grounds for leave to appeal were generalised and failed to specify the basis for alleged errors. The reasoning in the Rule 30 application was not challenged, and the applicants' attempt to introduce evidentiary material by filing notice was correctly found to be irregular. The striking out of scandalous, vexatious, inadmissible, and irrelevant material was justified, as the applicants conceded the guidelines relied upon were not binding or relevant. The court correctly applied the law of evidence and procedural rules, and there was no reasonable prospect that another court would reach a different conclusion. On the merits, the applicants failed to demonstrate that...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.