South Africa Case Law

Nahoon Estuary Management Forum NPO (Batting Bridge Picnic Site) v Buffalo City Metropolitan Municipality and Another (EL 1730/2022)

Nahoon Estuary Management Forum NPO (Batting Bridge Picnic Site) v Buffalo City Metropolitan Municipality and Another (EL 1730/2022) [2024] ZAECELLC 11 (2 April 2024)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, East London Local Court

Case number

EL 1730/2022

Judge

Zono

The court found that the Municipality is constitutionally and legislatively obliged to perform the functions sought by the applicant, including maintaining the park, controlling access, managing waste, and enforcing relevant Bylaws and the Operational Environmental Management Plan. The Municipality's argument that Bylaws only criminalize conduct and do not impose enforceable duties was rejected; the court held that the Municipality must administer and enforce its own Bylaws and ensure the rights of site users and the community are protected. The Management Plan, compiled by the relevant MEC,…

Source excerpt

• Municipal Bylaws Enforcement
• Public Interest Litigation
• Environmental Rights
• Waste Management
• Access Control In Public Parks
• Local Government Duties

Mining and Environmental Justice Community Network of South Africa and Others v Gert Sibande Joint Municipal Planning Tribunal and Others (1344/2020)

Mining and Environmental Justice Community Network of South Africa and Others v Gert Sibande Joint Municipal Planning Tribunal and Others (1344/2020) [2024] ZAMPMHC 7 (22 January 2024)

Court

Middelburg High Court, Mpumalanga

Case number

1344/2020

Judge

Mankge

The High Court upheld standing and rejected lis pendens, but found non-joinder of affected local communities and granted that point in limine with costs.

• Non Joinder
• Locus Standi
• Lis Pendens
• Environmental Rights
• Land Use Change
• Public Interest Litigation

Chung Fung (Pty) Ltd and Another v Mayfair Residents Association and Others (2148/2019)

Chung Fung (Pty) Ltd and Another v Mayfair Residents Association and Others (2148/2019) [2023] ZAGPJHC 263 (20 March 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2148/2019

Judges

Mudau, Mahalelo, Wanless

The court held that the appellants were not entitled to use Erf [...] for commercial activities or parking as these uses were inconsistent with its zoning as public open space under both the 1979 and 2018 Town Planning Schemes. The City of Johannesburg was bound by its own scheme and could not authorise uses outside its scope. The lease agreement did not override zoning restrictions, and the activities conducted by the appellants constituted a nuisance to nearby residents. The proposed construction of a boundary wall would not abate the nuisance sufficiently and would not legalise the unlawfu…

Source excerpt

• Town Planning Scheme
• Public Open Space Definition
• Nuisance
• Interdict
• Environmental Rights
• Admission Of Further Evidence On Appeal

Mining Forum of South Africa and Another v Minister of Mineral Resources and Others (M43/2018)

Mining Forum of South Africa and Another v Minister of Mineral Resources and Others (M43/2018) [2019] ZANWHC 8; [2019] 2 All SA 485 (NWM) (28 February 2019)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

M43/2018

Judge

Leeuw JP

The court found that the applicants had legal standing but failed to follow the correct procedure for judicial review under PAJA. The Department had taken appropriate administrative action to ensure Lonmin's compliance with its Social and Labour Plan, including issuing and withdrawing section 93 notices and accepting a revised plan. The relief sought by the applicants, including declaratory and interdictory orders, was not supported by the facts or the founding papers. The applicants did not establish a prima facie right to an interdict, nor did they demonstrate irreparable harm or lack of al…

Source excerpt

• Mineral And Petroleum Resources Development Act
• Social And Labour Plan Compliance
• Judicial Review Under Paja
• Ministerial Powers And Delegation
• Environmental Rights
• Interdict Requirements

Shelton and Another v Ndlambe Municipality and Others (621/2014)

Shelton and Another v Ndlambe Municipality and Others (621/2014) [2016] ZAECGHC 143 (1 December 2016)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

621/2014

Judge

N G Beshe

Review of municipal and Transnet land-sale decisions was granted after the court found the applicants had standing, explained the delay, and showed unlawful alienation.

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Municipal Property Alienation
• Environmental Rights
• Locus Standi
• Delay In Review
• Principle Of Legality

Normandien Farms (Pty) Ltd v Mathimbane and Others (LCC196/2013)

Normandien Farms (Pty) Ltd v Mathimbane and Others (LCC196/2013) [2015] ZALCC 14; 2017 (5) SA 204 (LCC) (5 November 2015)

Court

Land Claims Court

Case number

LCC 196/2013

Judge

Y Meer

The court found that the applicant had locus standi to bring the main application under CARA, the Labour Tenants Act, NEMA, and the Constitution, as the relief sought promoted environmental protection and conservation. The respondents' counterclaim for award of land and compensation failed because there was no proof of a valid application for an award in land under the Labour Tenants Act before the statutory cut-off date, and the court lacked authority to grant such relief. The State respondents' failure to act under CARA was noted, but the fourteenth respondent was ordered to make alternativ…

Source excerpt

• Overgrazing
• Conservation Of Agricultural Resources Act
• Labour Tenants Act
• Environmental Rights
• Locus Standi
• Removal Of Livestock

Sole NO and Another v Minister of the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries and Others (356/13)

Sole NO and Another v Minister of the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries and Others (356/13) [2013] ZAWCHC 94 (13 June 2013)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

356/13

Judge

P B Fourie

Urgent application for a final interdict to halt West Coast rock lobster fishing was dismissed; the court found no proven rights infringement or need to bypass other remedies.

• Marine Living Resources Act
• Environmental Rights
• Final Interdict
• Total Allowable Catch
• Public Interest Litigation
• Environmental-rights

Landev (Pty) Ltd v Black Eagle Project Roodekrans In re: Black Eagle Project Roodekrans v MEC Department Agriculture Conservation and Environment Gauteng Provincial Government and Others (6085/07)

Landev (Pty) Ltd v Black Eagle Project Roodekrans In re: Black Eagle Project Roodekrans v MEC Department Agriculture Conservation and Environment Gauteng Provincial Government and Others (6085/07) [2010] ZAGPJHC 18 (29 March 2010)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

6085/07

Judge

B S Spilg

The court found that Black Eagle Project, Roodekrans is engaged in bona fide public interest constitutional litigation, seeking review of administrative decisions under NEMA and PAJA, both of which give effect to constitutional rights. The litigation is not vexatious or abusive, and Black Eagle has locus standi under its memorandum of association, NEMA, and the Constitution. The principles established in Biowatch and Giddey require that courts avoid imposing adverse costs orders on public interest litigants unless their conduct is vexatious. Since it is unlikely that an adverse costs order wo…

Source excerpt

• Security For Costs
• Public Interest Litigation
• Locus Standi
• Environmental Rights
• Administrative Review
• Costs In Constitutional Litigation

Biowatch Trust v Registrar Genetic Resources and Others (CCT 80/08)

Biowatch Trust v Registrar Genetic Resources and Others (CCT 80/08) [2009] ZACC 14; 2009 (6) SA 232 (CC) ; 2009 (10) BCLR 1014 (CC) (3 June 2009)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 80/08

Judges

Sachs, Langa, Moseneke, Cameron, Mokgoro, Ngcobo, Nkabinde, O'Regan, Skweyiya, Van der Westhuizen, Yacoob

The Constitutional Court held that the High Court and Full Court erred in failing to apply the constitutional context to the costs awards. The general rule in constitutional litigation is that successful private parties should have their costs paid by the state, and unsuccessful parties should not be burdened with adverse costs unless their conduct is frivolous or vexatious. Biowatch achieved substantial success in asserting constitutional rights to information and environmental protection, and the government's persistent refusal to provide information compelled litigation. The High Court's r…

Source excerpt

• Costs In Constitutional Litigation
• Public Interest Litigation
• Right Of Access To Information
• Environmental Rights
• Judicial Discretion In Costs
• Promotion Of Access To Information Act

Trustees for the time being of The Biowatch Trust v Registrar Genetic Resources and Others (A831/2005)

Trustees for the time being of The Biowatch Trust v Registrar Genetic Resources and Others (A831/2005) [2007] ZAGPHC 270 (6 November 2007)

Court

High Courts - Gauteng

Case number

A831/2005

Judges

S J Mynhardt, J N M Poswa, L M Molopa

Appeal against a costs order dismissed. The court found no misdirection in the refusal to award Biowatch costs and in ordering it to pay Monsanto’s costs.

• Costs On Appeal
• Public Interest Litigation
• Access To Information
• Promotion Of Access To Information Act
• Environmental Rights
• Judicial Discretion In Costs