South Africa Case Law

Masuku N.O and Others v Minister of Mineral Resources and Others (A263/2022)

Masuku N.O and Others v Minister of Mineral Resources and Others (A263/2022) [2025] ZAGPPHC 37 (28 January 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A263/2022

Judges

Neukircher, Kubushi, Ally

The court found that the appeal had lapsed due to the appellants' repeated and flagrant non-compliance with the Uniform Rules, including late filing of the record, powers of attorney, and security for costs. The registrar's allocation of a hearing date did not cure these defects, and only the court could grant condonation, which was not warranted given the cumulative breaches and lack of acceptable explanation. On the merits, the court held that the appellants failed to exhaust internal remedies as required by section 96 of the MPRDA and section 7(2) of PAJA, and that no exceptional circumsta…

Source excerpt

• Mining Rights
• Exhaustion Of Internal Remedies
• Condonation
• Review Of Administrative Action
• Heritage Protection
• Appeal Lapse

Arcadia Residents and Ratepayers Association v Florap (Pty) Ltd and Others (3714/2022)

Arcadia Residents and Ratepayers Association v Florap (Pty) Ltd and Others (3714/2022) [2023] ZAGPPHC 603 (21 July 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

3714/2022

Judge

E Labuschagne

High Court contempt and interdict proceedings over unlawful building works at a heritage property in Arcadia. The court postponed relief against one respondent and granted enforcement and interim restraint orders.

• Contempt Of Court
• Building Regulations
• Heritage Protection
• Interdict
• Demolition Order
• Contempt-of-court

Zukulu and Others v Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs and Others (18553/2012)

Zukulu and Others v Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs and Others (18553/2012) [2019] ZAGPPHC 1111 (7 March 2019)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

18553/2012

Judge

C Pretorius

The court found that the decisions to grant environmental authorisation and dismiss appeals were lawful and rational. The DEA was not required to consider the socio-economic impact of tolling, as tolling is not a listed activity under the ECA or NEMA; such considerations fall within the mandate of the Minister of Transport. The public participation process was extensive, inclusive, and exceeded statutory requirements, with information provided in multiple languages and opportunities for engagement at numerous meetings and open days. Heritage concerns, including the relocation of graves, were…

Source excerpt

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Environmental Authorisation
• Public Participation
• Alternative Routes
• Customary Law Consultation
• Heritage Protection

Global Environmental Trust and Others v Tendele Coal Mining (Pty) Ltd and Others (11488/17P)

Global Environmental Trust and Others v Tendele Coal Mining (Pty) Ltd and Others (11488/17P) [2018] ZAKZPHC 62; [2019] 1 All SA 176 (KZP) (20 November 2018)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

11488/17P

Judge

Seegobin

The court found that Tendele Coal Mining (Pty) Ltd commenced mining operations lawfully under mining rights and EMPs approved prior to the December 2014 amendments introducing the One Environmental System. Section 12(4) of the NEMA Amendment Act deems such EMPs to be environmental authorisations under NEMA, permitting continuation of mining. The applicants failed to identify specific unlawful activities or provide substantiated evidence of non-compliance. Municipal land use approval and waste management licences are not required for pre-existing mining operations under the relevant transition…

Source excerpt

• Environmental Authorisation
• Mining Rights
• Municipal Land Use
• Waste Management Licence
• Heritage Protection
• Interdict Requirements

Aquila Steel SA (Pty) Ltd v South African Steel Company (Pty) Ltd (14612/2013)

Aquila Steel SA (Pty) Ltd v South African Steel Company (Pty) Ltd (14612/2013) [2014] ZAGPPHC 218 (14 March 2014)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

14612/2013

Judge

Cilliers

The court held that the applicant, as holder of a prospecting right and an approved amended Environmental Management Plan, is entitled to access the properties for prospecting activities. The prospecting right remains valid pending renewal under section 18(5) of the MPRDA. The applicant complied with statutory requirements by notifying and consulting both the previous and current landowners. Local authority approval is not required as the properties fall outside a town-planning or zoning scheme under the applicable provincial ordinance. The presence of graves and burial sites, while protected…

Source excerpt

• Prospecting Rights
• Environmental Management Plan
• Land Use Approval
• Heritage Protection
• Municipal Planning
• Access To Property

Oudekraal Estates (Pty) Ltd v The City of Cape Town and Others (25/08)

Oudekraal Estates (Pty) Ltd v The City of Cape Town and Others (25/08) [2009] ZASCA 85; 2010 (1) SA 333 (SCA) (3 September 2009)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

25/08

Judges

Navsa, Van Heerden, Ponnan, Mhlantla, Wallis

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the 1957 administrative approval for the establishment of a township on portion 7 of Oudekraal was invalid from inception due to the non-disclosure of graves and kramats of significant religious and cultural importance. Although there was an unprecedented delay in bringing review proceedings, the court exercised its discretion to disregard the delay, considering the unique circumstances, including the marginalisation of the Muslim community under apartheid, the environmental and heritage value of the land, and the absence of substantial reliance or prejud…

Source excerpt

• Delay Rule In Judicial Review
• Ultra Vires Administrative Action
• Freedom Of Religion
• Environmental Conservation
• Bill Of Rights Limitation
• Heritage Protection

Oudekraal Estates (Pty) Ltd v City of Cape Town and Others (41/2003)

Oudekraal Estates (Pty) Ltd v City of Cape Town and Others (41/2003) [2004] ZASCA 48; [2004] 3 All SA 1 (SCA); 2004 (6) SA 222 (SCA) (28 May 2004)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

41/2003

Judges

Howie, Cameron, Brand, Nugent, Southwood

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Administrator's approval for the establishment of Oudekraal Township was invalid at the outset due to the failure to consider material facts, specifically the existence of graves and kramats of significant religious and cultural importance. However, the Court found that an unlawful administrative act cannot simply be ignored; it remains effective in fact and produces legal consequences until set aside by a competent court in judicial review proceedings. The City Council was not entitled to disregard the Administrator's approval and its consequences me…

Source excerpt

• Invalid Administrative Action
• Collateral Challenge
• Township Establishment
• Ultra Vires
• Judicial Review
• Heritage Protection