South Africa Case Law

Sustaining the Wild Coast NPC and Others v Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy and Others (3491/2021)

Sustaining the Wild Coast NPC and Others v Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy and Others (3491/2021) [2022] ZAECMKHC 55; 2022 (6) SA 589 (ECMk) (1 September 2022)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Makhanda

Case number

3491/2021

Judges

Mbenenge, Nhlangulela, Norman

The court found that the consultation process preceding the grant and renewals of the exploration right was procedurally unfair and failed to meet constitutional and statutory requirements. Notices were inaccessible to affected rural communities, and meaningful engagement did not occur. The decision-maker failed to consider relevant factors, including harm to marine and bird life, climate change impacts, and customary and spiritual rights. The State did not comply with the public trust obligations under ICMA. The applicants were not barred by delay, as they only became aware of the decisions…

Source excerpt

• Procedural Fairness
• Consultation With Affected Communities
• Precautionary Principle
• Environmental Authorisation
• Customary Rights
• Public Trust Doctrine

West Coast Environmental Protection Association v Minister Of Water And Sanitation and Others (WT01/17/WC)

West Coast Environmental Protection Association v Minister Of Water And Sanitation and Others (WT01/17/WC) [2021] ZAWT 8 (5 October 2021)

Court

Water Tribunal

Case number

WT01/17/WC

Judges

Ntika Maake, L. Mbanjwa

The Water Tribunal dismissed an appeal against a water use licence for a phosphate mine, but ordered that all 79 recommended site-specific conditions be added.

• Water Use Licensing
• Precautionary Principle
• Public Trust Doctrine
• Adaptive Management
• Mining Authorisation
• Site Specific Conditions

SA Shore Angling Association v Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (63/02)

SA Shore Angling Association v Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (63/02) [2002] ZAECHC 12; 2002 (5) SA 511 (SE) (25 April 2002)

Court

High Courts - Eastern Cape

Case number

63/02

Judge

A.R. Erasmus

The court held that the Regulations promulgated under NEMA are not rendered invalid by the Sea-shore Act, as Parliament may confer overlapping powers on different Ministers unless expressly excluded. The Regulations are not unconstitutional or unreasonable, as they provide for exemptions, permits, and are consistent with the objectives of environmental protection mandated by the Constitution and NEMA. The applicants failed to demonstrate that the Regulations operate so unreasonably that no reasonable person could have exercised the power in such a manner. The court found that the applicants d…

Source excerpt

• National Environmental Management Act
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Ultra Vires
• Reasonableness Of Regulations
• Public Trust Doctrine
• Constitutional Review