South Africa Case Law

Tshipise Safaris (Pty) Ltd v TD Nhlamulo and His Mother Logistics and Business Enterprises (Pty) Ltd and Others (538/2022)

Tshipise Safaris (Pty) Ltd v TD Nhlamulo and His Mother Logistics and Business Enterprises (Pty) Ltd and Others (538/2022) [2025] ZALMPPHC 124 (19 June 2025)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

538/2022

Judge

S Du Plessis

The Court found that the Applicant had locus standi under both the National Environmental Management Act and the Constitution, despite not being the registered owner, due to its beneficial ownership and undisturbed possession. The First and Tenth Respondents were found to have continued mining activities unlawfully after the lapse of their permit, in contempt of previous court orders and statutory requirements. The Department of Mineral Resources and Energy and SAPS failed to enforce compliance notices and statutory obligations. The Respondents' points in limine, including non-joinder, lis pe…

Source excerpt

• Mining Permit Renewal
• Environmental Authorisation
• Contempt Of Court
• Unlawful Mining
• Public Participation
• Internal Appeal Process

Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment and Others v Badenhorst N.O. and Others (1004/2023)

Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment and Others v Badenhorst N.O. and Others (1004/2023) [2025] ZASCA 68 (28 May 2025)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

1004/2023

Judges

Mocumie, Mbatha, Kathree-Setiloane, Gorven, Makume

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the High Court lacked jurisdiction to review and set aside the environmental authorisations on grounds not raised in the internal appeal, as the respondents failed to exhaust internal remedies and did not apply for exemption under section 7(2)(c) of PAJA. The Court found that any procedural non-compliance in the granting of environmental authorisations was not material and did not prejudice any person, thus the authorisations remained valid under section 47A(1) of NEMA. The requirement for EMPrs is that they be submitted before deciding on authorisation,…

Source excerpt

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Exhaustion Of Internal Remedies
• Environmental Authorisation
• Environmental Impact Assessment
• Substantial Compliance
• Materiality And Prejudice

Platinum Mile Inv 442 (Pty) Ltd and Another v Chief Director, the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment and Others (17469/2024)

Platinum Mile Inv 442 (Pty) Ltd and Another v Chief Director, the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment and Others (17469/2024) [2025] ZAWCHC 129 (20 March 2025)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

17469/2024

Judge

CN NZIWENI

The High Court granted an interim interdict stopping Eskom and the National Transmission Company from advancing expropriation steps pending a review.

• Environmental Authorisation
• Public Participation Process
• Interim Interdict
• Expropriation
• Property Rights
• Electricity Infrastructure

Uzani Environmental Advocacy CC v BP Southern Africa (Pty) Ltd (Costs) (CC 82/2017)

Uzani Environmental Advocacy CC v BP Southern Africa (Pty) Ltd (Costs) (CC 82/2017) [2025] ZAGPPHC 263 (20 March 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

CC 82/2017

Judge

Spilg

The court held that section 34B of NEMA is confined to informants and does not entitle private prosecutors to a share of fines; their entitlement to costs is governed by section 33(3) of NEMA and section 15 of the Criminal Procedure Act. Advance provision for costs of appeal is not permitted under section 33(3), as costs are only claimable upon completion of trial or appeal. The prosecution is entitled to attorney and client costs for a successful private prosecution, given the constitutional importance of environmental protection and the need to ensure that those who prosecute in the public…

Source excerpt

• Private Prosecution Costs
• National Environmental Management Act
• Attorney And Client Costs
• Retrospectivity Of Costs Rules
• Environmental Authorisation
• Uniform Rule 67a

Milnerton Central Residents Association v Toefy N.O and Others (9/2024)

Milnerton Central Residents Association v Toefy N.O and Others (9/2024) [2025] ZAWCHC 67 (21 February 2025)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

9/2024

Judge

Van den Berg AJ

The court found that the respondents substantially complied with the mandatory requirements of NEMA and the EIA Regulations in considering alternatives to the proposed development. The public participation process was comprehensive, and the decision-making process included consideration of expert reports and stakeholder input. The applicant failed to provide credible evidence of bias or lack of independence on the part of the EAP, who was registered and experienced. The ownership of nearby developments was not a material factor requiring disclosure, and heritage concerns were properly address…

Source excerpt

• Environmental Authorisation
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Public Participation
• Alternatives Assessment
• Judicial Review
• Heritage Resources

Kangra Coal (Pty) Ltd v The Trustees of the Time Being of the Corneels Greyling Trust and Others (1052/2023)

Kangra Coal (Pty) Ltd v The Trustees of the Time Being of the Corneels Greyling Trust and Others (1052/2023) [2025] ZASCA 9 (6 February 2025)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

1052/2023

Judges

Mocumie, Hughes, Weiner, Molefe, Chili

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the respondents failed to establish actual harm or a reasonable apprehension of harm resulting from Kangra's mining and water use activities. The evidence showed that Kangra had operated the mine for over six years without any reduction in water or pollution, and the respondents relied only on speculative future harm. The expert report submitted by the respondents did not contradict Kangra's evidence or demonstrate any imminent threat. The Court held that the requirements for a final interdict were not satisfied, as the respondents did not prove the seco…

Source excerpt

• Water Use Licence
• Interdict Requirements
• Locus Standi
• National Water Act
• Environmental Authorisation

Jooste and Another v Member of the Executive Council for Local Government Environmental Affairs & Development Planning: Western Cape and Others (637/23)

Jooste and Another v Member of the Executive Council for Local Government Environmental Affairs & Development Planning: Western Cape and Others (637/23) [2024] ZASCA 138 (11 October 2024)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

637/23

Judges

Molemela, Ponnan, Keightly, Baartman, Dippenaar

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the settlement order of 18 October 2019, made an order of court, resolved all disputes between SAFAM and the State respondents regarding the environmental authorisation and waste management licence. The order is binding and final, and the appellants did not seek to challenge or set aside the order. As a result, the issues raised by the appellants are res judicata and cannot be revisited. The procedural complaints regarding condonation and public participation were subsumed by the settlement order, which provided directions for the authorisation process. T…

Source excerpt

• Environmental Authorisation
• Retrospective Authorisation
• Res Judicata
• Public Participation
• Costs Award
• Condonation

Uzani Environmental Advocacy CC v BP Southern Africa (Pty) Ltd (Sentence) (CC 82/2017)

Uzani Environmental Advocacy CC v BP Southern Africa (Pty) Ltd (Sentence) (CC 82/2017) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1387 (6 September 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

CC 82/2017

Judge

Spilg

The court found that BP Southern Africa (Pty) Ltd was guilty of contravening section 22(1) read with section 29(4) of the Environmental Conservation Act by constructing filling stations without the required environmental authorisation. The offences triggered liability under section 34(3) of NEMA for counts 12 to 21, as environmental degradation was established at Rabie Ridge and inadequate authorisation and disclosure were proven for other sites. The court exercised its discretion to impose a fine equal to the financial advantage gained by BP during the period of unauthorised operation, calcu…

Source excerpt

• Environmental Authorisation
• Failure To Obtain Authorisation
• Disgorgement Of Profits
• Assessment Of Advantage Gained
• Environmental Degradation
• Sentencing Principles

Northern Coal v Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy and Others (2024-061972)

Northern Coal v Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy and Others (2024-061972) [2024] ZAGPPHC 750 (24 July 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2024-061972

Judge

de Vos

The court found that section 102 of the MPRDA does not require a valid prospecting right over the area to be added to an existing mining right. Northern Coal's section 102 application was first in time and should take precedence over Jaments' subsequent application. The Minister's suspension decision was based on irrelevant considerations and failed to consider the real and imminent harm to Northern Coal, including financial, employment, and environmental consequences. The principle of first-in-time, first-in-right applies to section 102 consent applications, and the Minister erred in law by…

Source excerpt

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Mining Rights Variation
• First In Time Principle
• Judicial Substitution Of Administrative Decision
• Commercial Urgency
• Environmental Authorisation

River Meadow Manor Properties (Pty) Ltd v Siyandasabelo Trading (Pty) Ltd and Others (16638/2022)

River Meadow Manor Properties (Pty) Ltd v Siyandasabelo Trading (Pty) Ltd and Others (16638/2022) [2024] ZAGPPHC 616 (13 June 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

16638/2022

Judge

SJ Cowen

The High Court held that the applicant could enforce a contractual right to register a right-of-way servitude, despite later selling the dominant property.

• Registration Of Servitude
• Contractual Rights
• Sectional Title Scheme
• Environmental Authorisation
• Standing
• Costs Scale B