South Africa Case Law

Mining and Environmental Justice Community Network of South Africa and Others v Minister of Environmental Affairs and Others (50779/2017)

Mining and Environmental Justice Community Network of South Africa and Others v Minister of Environmental Affairs and Others (50779/2017) [2018] ZAGPPHC 875; 2019 (5) SA 231 (GP) (8 November 2018)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

50779/2017

Judge

N Davis

High Court review of mining permission in the Mabola Protected Environment was upheld; the Ministers’ approvals were set aside for procedural unfairness and failure to apply NEMPAA properly.

• Protected Areas Management
• Ministerial Discretion
• Procedural Fairness
• Public Participation
• Judicial Review
• Environmental Authorisation

Mining and Environmental Justice Community Network of South Africa and Others v Minister of Environmental Affairs and Others (50779/2017)

Mining and Environmental Justice Community Network of South Africa and Others v Minister of Environmental Affairs and Others (50779/2017) [2018] ZAGPPHC 807; [2019] 1 All SA 491 (GP) (8 November 2018)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

50779/2017

Judge

N Davis

The court found that the Ministers' decisions to permit mining in the Mabola Protected Environment were procedurally unfair and unlawful. The Ministers failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of sections 3 and 4 of PAJA, did not provide transparency or public participation, and did not properly consider all relevant information, including the interests of local communities, the final management plan, and pending statutory appeals. The Ministers' approach amounted to an impermissible reliance on other authorisations without independent scrutiny, contrary to their distinctive duties un…

Source excerpt

• Protected Areas Management
• Ministerial Discretion
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Public Participation
• Mining Authorisation
• Constitutional Environmental Rights

Umfolozi Sugar Planters Limited and Others v Isimangaliso Wetland Park Authority and Others (873/2017)

Umfolozi Sugar Planters Limited and Others v Isimangaliso Wetland Park Authority and Others (873/2017) [2018] ZASCA 144 (1 October 2018)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

873/2017

Judges

Ponnan, Mbha, Dambuza, Makgoka, Mokgohloa

The Supreme Court of Appeal dismissed an environmental-law appeal as moot after publication of the new management plan for the St Lucia estuary.

• Estuarine Management
• Declaratory Relief
• Mootness
• Interim Interdict
• Protected Areas Management
• Declaratory-relief

Eastern Cape Parks and Tourism Agency v Medbury (Pty) Ltd t/a Crown River Safari (816/2016)

Eastern Cape Parks and Tourism Agency v Medbury (Pty) Ltd t/a Crown River Safari (816/2016) [2018] ZASCA 34; 2018 (4) SA 206 (SCA) (27 March 2018)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

816/2016

Judges

Navsa, Seriti, Saldulker, Swain, Schippers

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the certificate contemplated in section 2(2)(a) of the Game Theft Act is not the sole prerequisite for the protection against loss of ownership provided by section 2(1)(a). The deeming provision was intended to facilitate proof that land is sufficiently enclosed to confine game, but does not preclude an owner from proving sufficient enclosure by other means. Interpreting the certificate as an exclusive requirement would defeat the legislative purpose of protecting owners who have taken adequate measures to enclose game. The court found that the legislativ…

Source excerpt

• Game Theft Act Interpretation
• Ownership Of Wild Animals
• Protected Areas Management
• Statutory Interpretation
• Development Of Common Law
• Constitutional Conservation Principles

Parkscape v MTO Forestry (Pty) Ltd and Another (15910/2016)

Parkscape v MTO Forestry (Pty) Ltd and Another (15910/2016) [2017] ZAWCHC 22; 2018 (1) SA 263 (WCC) (1 March 2017)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

15910/2016

Judge

Gamble

The court held that SANParks, in consenting to MTO's request to accelerate the clear-felling of Dennendal plantation, exercised public power under statutory authority, not merely private contractual rights. This decision had immediate and direct legal consequences for both MTO and the public, particularly regarding access to shaded recreational areas. The court found that extensive prior public participation processes had established a legitimate expectation that further decisions impacting public use would be subject to consultation. SANParks' failure to inform or consult the public before c…

Source excerpt

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Legitimate Expectation
• Public Participation
• Protected Areas Management
• Contractual Vs Public Power
• Procedural Fairness

Coastal Links Langebaan and Others v Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries and Others (11907/13)

Coastal Links Langebaan and Others v Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries and Others (11907/13) [2016] ZAWCHC 150; [2017] 2 All SA 46 (WCC) (31 October 2016)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

11907/13

Judge

Sher

The court found that the restrictive conditions imposed on the applicants' permits and exemptions, prohibiting fishing in Zone B, were arbitrary and irrational. The respondents relied on outdated scientific studies and failed to consider more recent, lagoon-specific data and the imperative for transformation as required by the Marine Living Resources Act and applicable policies. The mechanistic repetition of exclusionary conditions, without annual application of the mind or consideration of relevant material, rendered the process irrational. Furthermore, the exclusion of historically disadvan…

Source excerpt

• Marine Living Resources Act
• Unfair Discrimination
• Protected Areas Management
• Review Of Administrative Action
• Structural Interdict
• Customary Fishing Rights

Eastern Cape Parks and Tourism Agency v Medbury (Pty) Lts t/a Crown River Safari and Another (1466/2013)

Eastern Cape Parks and Tourism Agency v Medbury (Pty) Lts t/a Crown River Safari and Another (1466/2013) [2016] ZAECGHC 2; 2016 (4) SA 457 (ECG) (18 February 2016)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

1466/2013

Judge

Smith

The court held that section 2(1)(a) of the Game Theft Act protects ownership of game only when a certificate of sufficient enclosure has been issued for the relevant species, as contemplated in section 2(2)(a). The certificate is a practical mechanism to avoid disputes and forensic investigation into enclosure adequacy, and its absence precludes statutory protection. The plaintiff failed to obtain such a certificate and thus cannot rely on the Act for protection. Regarding development of the common law, the court found no conflict with constitutional provisions or inadequacy in the spirit, pu…

Source excerpt

• Game Theft Act Interpretation
• Ownership Of Wild Animals
• Development Of Common Law
• Constitutional Application
• Protected Areas Management

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