South Africa Case Law

Astral Operations Ltd t/a Country Fair Foods and Others v The Minister for Local Government, Environmental Affairs and Development Planning (Western Cape) and Others (1104/2020)

Astral Operations Ltd t/a Country Fair Foods and Others v The Minister for Local Government, Environmental Affairs and Development Planning (Western Cape) and Others (1104/2020) [2022] ZASCA 62; [2022] 3 All SA 1 (SCA); 2023 (2) SA 102 (SCA) (29 April 2022)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

1104/2020

Judges

Zondi, Molemela, Dlodlo, Gorven, Musi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appeal authority under section 35(3) and (4) of the Environment Conservation Act has wide powers, including the ability to substitute or replace the decision of the competent authority. The Court found that the application for environmental authorisation presented both Atlantis and Kalbaskraal as alternative sites, and that the comparative assessment of both sites was required by law. The statutory definition of 'alternatives' includes different locations for the same activity. The Court rejected the appellants' argument that the appeal authority's po…

Source excerpt

• Environment Conservation Act
• Environmental Authorisation
• Administrative Appeal Powers
• Site Selection
• Judicial Review

Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs and Another v Really Useful Investments No 219 (Pty) Ltd and Another (436/2015)

Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs and Another v Really Useful Investments No 219 (Pty) Ltd and Another (436/2015) [2016] ZASCA 156; [2017] 1 All SA 14 (SCA); 2017 (1) SA 505 (SCA) (3 October 2016)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

436/2015

Judges

Navsa, Wallis, Dambuza, Mocumie, Dlodlo

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that section 34 of the Environment Conservation Act provides a right to compensation only in circumstances where limitations are placed on land use or activities through the creation of protected environmental areas, not for regulatory directives issued under section 31A. The directive issued by the City was regulatory, aimed at preventing environmental harm, and did not curtail real rights in land in the manner contemplated by section 34. The exemption provisions in section 37 of ECA and section 49 of NEMA do not apply to statutory compensation claims under s…

Source excerpt

• Environment Conservation Act
• National Environmental Management Act
• Statutory Interpretation
• Compensation For Loss
• Regulatory Directives
• Exception Procedure

Really Useful Investments NO 219 (Pty) Ltd v City of Cape Town and Others (8102/2014)

Really Useful Investments NO 219 (Pty) Ltd v City of Cape Town and Others (8102/2014) [2015] ZAWCHC 35 (27 March 2015)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

8102/2014

Judge

K M Savage

The court held that section 34 of the ECA creates a statutory compensation right not limited by liability clauses, so the exception and plea failed.

• Environment Conservation Act
• Statutory Compensation
• Limitation Of Liability
• Constitutional Right To Environment
• Expropriation
• Pleading Exception

South African Tyre Recycling Process Company NPC and Another v Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs and Others (50556/12)

South African Tyre Recycling Process Company NPC and Another v Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs and Others (50556/12) [2012] ZAGPPHC 202 (17 September 2012)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

50556/12

Judge

Van der Byl

The High Court dismissed an urgent application challenging waste-tyre regulations, holding that producers without an approved plan had to comply with the existing approved plan.

• Waste Tyre Management
• Environment Conservation Act
• Interim Interdict
• Regulatory Compliance
• Waste-tyre-management
• Environmental-law

Sharwood NO and Others v Transnet Ltd t/a National Ports Authority of South frica and Others (1038/2011)

Sharwood NO and Others v Transnet Ltd t/a National Ports Authority of South frica and Others (1038/2011) [2012] ZAECPEHC 61 (6 September 2012)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth

Case number

1038/2011

Judge

Chetty

The High Court held that the revised environmental authorisation did not require the respondents to fund or build the rehabilitation centre; the application was dismissed.

• Environment Conservation Act
• Environmental Authorisation
• Record Of Decision
• Public Participation
• Judicial Review
• Mitigation Measures

Engelbrecht v MEC for the Department of Agriculture, Conservation, Environment and Tourism (North West Province) and Others (1068/2009)

Engelbrecht v MEC for the Department of Agriculture, Conservation, Environment and Tourism (North West Province) and Others (1068/2009) [2010] ZANWHC 15 (20 May 2010)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

1068/2009

Judge

A A Landman

The High Court reviewed and set aside approvals for a road upgrade because the Western Bypass was not properly assessed by EIA before authorization.

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Environment Conservation Act
• Environmental Impact Assessment
• Public Participation
• Review Of Administrative Action
• Administrative-law

MEC: Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Environment and Another v HTF Developers (Pty) Limited (CCT 32/07)

MEC: Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Environment and Another v HTF Developers (Pty) Limited (CCT 32/07) [2007] ZACC 25; 2008 (2) SA 319 (CC); 2008 (4) BCLR 417 (CC) (6 December 2007)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 32/07

Judges

Skweyiya, Langa, Moseneke, Madala, Mpati, Ngcobo, Nkabinde, Sachs, Van der Westhuizen, Yacoob

The Constitutional Court held that section 31A of the Environment Conservation Act does not require compliance with the 30-day notice and comment procedure in section 32 when issuing directives to specific persons. Section 32 is intended for regulations and directions affecting the general public, not for urgent or targeted administrative actions. The Court found that procedural fairness under PAJA applies to section 31A directives, but the requirements may be truncated in urgent circumstances to allow authorities to respond promptly to environmental harm. The Court emphasised that environmen…

Source excerpt

• Environment Conservation Act
• Notice And Comment Procedure
• Procedural Fairness
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Bill Of Rights Limitation
• Urgent Environmental Directives

HTF Developers v Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism and Others (337/06)

HTF Developers v Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism and Others (337/06) [2007] ZASCA 37; [2007] 4 All SA 1108 (SCA); 2007 (11) BCLR 1230 (SCA); 2007 (5) SA 438 (SCA) (28 March 2007)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

337/06

Judges

Harms, Brand, Jafta, Combrinck, Musi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the phrase 'cultivation or any other use of virgin ground' in Regulation 1182 is an agrarian term, intended to apply only to agricultural land and not to land within a proclaimed township. The court found that item 10 of Regulation 1182 was void for vagueness, as it failed to provide reasonable certainty to landowners regarding prohibited activities, rendering the directive invalid. Furthermore, the court determined that the procedural requirements of s 32, including publication of a draft notice and opportunity for comment, were not complied with, and su…

Source excerpt

• Environment Conservation Act
• Vagueness Of Regulation
• Procedural Fairness
• Declaratory Relief
• Statutory Interpretation

Laskey and Another v Showzone CC and Others (5988/06)

Laskey and Another v Showzone CC and Others (5988/06) [2006] ZAWCHC 50; [2007] 4 All SA 1162 (C); 2007 (2) SA 48 (C) (30 October 2006)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

5988/06

Judge

Binns-Ward

The court found that the applicants had established an actionable private nuisance due to amplified noise from the respondent's theatre-restaurant, which materially affected their comfort and enjoyment of their apartments. Mere breach of the Noise Control Regulations does not automatically entitle private parties to interdictory relief; actual harm must be shown. The evidence, including expert acoustic reports, demonstrated that the noise levels were significant, regular, and unreasonable in the urban residential context, and that effective remedial measures were available. The respondent's a…

Source excerpt

• Noise Nuisance
• Private Nuisance
• Interdictory Relief
• Environment Conservation Act
• Urban Residential Rights
• Acoustic Insulation

Micro Math Trading 14 CC t/a Parkville Motors v Oelofse NO and Others (10345/05)

Micro Math Trading 14 CC t/a Parkville Motors v Oelofse NO and Others (10345/05) [2006] ZAGPHC 199 (18 May 2006)

Court

High Courts - Gauteng

Case number

10345/05

Judge

Engelbrecht

The court found that the applicants were aware of the authorisation and its extension but failed to pursue the statutory remedies available under the Environment Conservation Act, nor did they institute review proceedings within the prescribed 180-day period under PAJA. The delay was both unreasonable and prejudicial, as the respondents had completed construction and commenced operation of the filling station in reliance on the authorisation. The applicants' explanations for the delay were inadequate, and their failure to seek interdictory relief or notify the respondents of intended review p…

Source excerpt

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Environment Conservation Act
• Judicial Review Delay
• Authorisation Extension
• Interdictory Relief
• Condonation For Late Review