South Africa Case Law

Thungela Operations (Pty) Ltd v Chief Director, Water Use License Management: Department Of Water And Sanitation and Others (WT04/22/GP)

Thungela Operations (Pty) Ltd v Chief Director, Water Use License Management: Department Of Water And Sanitation and Others (WT04/22/GP) [2023] ZAWT 1 (26 April 2023)

Court

Water Tribunal

Case number

WT04/22/GP

Judges

T. Murombo, S. Kvalsvig, U. Mbeki

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to provide sufficient and reliable geohydrological and geochemical data from the open pit area, resulting in inadequate modelling of groundwater impacts and post-mining water contamination. The mitigation measures proposed for acid mine drainage and wetland loss were found to be insufficient, particularly for long-term post-closure impacts. The appellant did not submit a formal, motivated application for exemption from GN704 regulations, and the cumulative impacts on already degraded water resources were not properly addressed. Socio-economic benef…

Source excerpt

• Water Use Licensing
• National Water Act
• Acid Mine Drainage
• Wetland Protection
• Environmental Authorisation
• Public Interest Balancing

Driemeyer v Department Of Water And Sanitation (05/19/KZN)

Driemeyer v Department Of Water And Sanitation (05/19/KZN) [2022] ZAWT 4 (31 May 2022)

Court

Water Tribunal

Case number

05/19/KZN

Judges

L Mbanjwa, SD Kvalsvig

The Water Tribunal set aside a directive over unlawful dams, holding that the appellant should be allowed to pursue water-use licence applications.

• National Water Act
• Water Use Licensing
• Environmental Impact Assessment
• Rectification Of Unlawful Use
• Procedural Fairness
• Public Interest Balancing

Post Office Retirement Fund v South African Post Office SOC Ltd and Others (35043/2020)

Post Office Retirement Fund v South African Post Office SOC Ltd and Others (35043/2020) [2020] ZAGPPHC 519 (14 September 2020)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

35043/2020

Judge

Kubushi

The court found that SAPO’s failure to remit pension contributions was not due to wilful default but resulted from the unforeseen and severe financial impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown. Rule 3.3 requires monthly payments, but the prevailing circumstances rendered compliance impossible. The court held that impossibility of performance, especially when caused by unforeseen events, temporarily excuses SAPO’s obligations. Compelling SAPO to pay the arrears within five days, as sought by the Fund, would jeopardise SAPO’s ability to fulfil its core statutory and constitutional functions,…

Source excerpt

• Statutory Interpretation
• Impossibility Of Performance
• Mandamus
• Rule Of Law Challenge
• Public Interest Balancing
• Retirement Fund Obligations