South Africa Case Law

Magaliesberg Protection Association v MEC: Department of Agriculture, Conservation, Environment and Rural Development, North West Provincial Government and Others (563/12)

Magaliesberg Protection Association v MEC: Department of Agriculture, Conservation, Environment and Rural Development, North West Provincial Government and Others (563/12) [2013] ZASCA 80; [2013] 3 All SA 416 (SCA) (30 May 2013)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

563/12

Judges

NAVSA, MAYA, TSHIQI, PLASKET, SWAIN

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the MEC and Chief Director had considered all relevant factors, including specialist reports and mitigation measures, when granting ex post facto environmental authorisation for the development within the Magaliesberg Protected Environment. The Environmental Management Framework, although finalised, did not add any material considerations beyond those already addressed and its non-consideration was inconsequential. The public participation process, while not perfect, was sufficient and afforded the appellant a full opportunity to make representations. The…

Source excerpt

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Environmental Authorisation
• Public Participation
• Environmental Management Framework
• Eco Tourism
• Judicial Review

Magaliesberg Protection Association v MEC, Department of Agriculture, Conservation, Environment and Rural Development, North- West Provincial Government and Others (1776/2010)

Magaliesberg Protection Association v MEC, Department of Agriculture, Conservation, Environment and Rural Development, North- West Provincial Government and Others (1776/2010) [2011] ZANWHC 67 (15 December 2011)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

1776/2010

Judge

M M Leeuw

The court found that the Environmental Management Framework (EMF) for the Magaliesberg Protected Environment was not yet operational when the Chief Director granted the environmental authorisation under section 24G of NEMA, and thus failure to consider it did not render the decision reviewable. The MEC, when considering the appeal, was not required to apply the EMF retrospectively. The court held that the respondents had complied with the relevant statutory and regulatory requirements, including public participation, consideration of environmental impacts, and imposition of mitigation and mon…

Source excerpt

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Environmental Authorisation
• Protected Areas Management
• Public Participation
• Eco Tourism
• Judicial Review

Phillips v South African National Parks Board (4035/07)

Phillips v South African National Parks Board (4035/07) [2010] ZAECGHC 27 (22 April 2010)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

4035/07

Judge

Eksteen

The court ordered removal of an encroaching predator fence from the applicant’s land, finding no valid agreement or sufficient conservation-based justification to keep it there.

• Encroachment
• Removal Of Encroaching Structure
• Protected Areas Management
• Eco Tourism
• Constitutional Property Rights
• Property-rights