South Africa Case Law

Lord's View Property Owners Association NPC v Member of Executive Council For Economic Development, Agriculture, Environment and Rural Development, Gauteng Province and Others (2021/56800)

Lord's View Property Owners Association NPC v Member of Executive Council For Economic Development, Agriculture, Environment and Rural Development, Gauteng Province and Others (2021/56800) [2024] ZAGPJHC 718 (8 August 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2021/56800

Judge

Adams

The court found that the extension and expansion decisions regarding the Chloorkop Landfill Site were lawful, rational, and in compliance with the relevant statutory and constitutional requirements. The applicant failed to establish any grounds for review under the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act or the doctrine of legality. Condition 3.2.6 of the 1997 permit was not a mandatory closure provision and could be varied by the administrative decision-makers. The extension decision had become moot as waste deposition under the 1997 permit had ceased. The expansion decision was properly con…

Source excerpt

• National Environmental Management Waste Act
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Doctrine Of Legality
• Waste Management Licensing
• Judicial Review
• Environmental Impact Assessment

Lord's view Property Owners Association NPC v Member of the Executive Council for the Economic Development, Agriculture, Environment and Rural Development Gauteng Province and Others (43464/2020)

Lord's view Property Owners Association NPC v Member of the Executive Council for the Economic Development, Agriculture, Environment and Rural Development Gauteng Province and Others (43464/2020) [2022] ZAGPJHC 956 (29 November 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

43464/2020

Judge

N Manoim

The court held that the construction and operation of Cell 7 at the Chloorkop Landfill Site were lawfully authorised under the variation provisions of the 1997 licence, which remains valid by virtue of transitional arrangements in the National Environmental Management: Waste Act. The new environmental legislation does not expressly require a new licence or amendment for such developments where the licence variation procedure is followed. The process met the required pollution control standards, and the lack of public participation did not render the approval unlawful, especially as the appeal…

Source excerpt

• Waste Management Licensing
• Public Participation
• Legitimate Expectation
• Environmental Impact Assessment
• Transitional Provisions
• Property Rights

City of Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality v New Star Technology CC and Another (18162/2021)

City of Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality v New Star Technology CC and Another (18162/2021) [2022] ZAGPJHC 769; 2023 (3) SA 579 (GJ) (23 September 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

18162/2021

Judge

S C Mia

The High Court granted a final interdict against a plastic recycling business operating without required environmental licences and ordered punitive costs.

• National Environmental Management Act
• Waste Management Licensing
• Atmospheric Emission Licensing
• Municipal Powers
• Public Interest Interdict
• Norms And Standards Compliance

Minister of Environmental Affairs and Another v ArcelorMittal South Africa Limited (342/2019)

Minister of Environmental Affairs and Another v ArcelorMittal South Africa Limited (342/2019) [2020] ZASCA 40 (17 April 2020)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

342/2019

Judges

Petse, Swain, Mokgohloa, Mbatha, Koen

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that AMSA's Newcastle operations and BOF slag disposal site, established in the 1970s, were not subject to the retrospective application of the ECA, NEMA, or NEM:WA. The definition of 'waste' in NEM:WA does not encompass materials that are not unwanted, rejected, or abandoned, and AMSA's BOF slag, both 'current arisings' and 'reclaimed slag', retained commercial value and was recycled for sale. The issuance of decommissioning and construction licences did not extinguish AMSA's pre-existing rights, as s 80(4) of NEM:WA explicitly allows continued operation unti…

Source excerpt

• Waste Management Licensing
• Statutory Interpretation
• Retrospective Application Of Statutes
• Review Of Administrative Action
• Declaratory Relief

Minister of Environmental Affairs and Another v Arcelomittal South Africa Limited (86171/2016, A103/2019)

Minister of Environmental Affairs and Another v Arcelomittal South Africa Limited (86171/2016, A103/2019) [2019] ZAGPPHC 262 (27 June 2019)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

86171/2016, A103/2019

Judges

WHG van der Linde, N Ranchod, E M Kubushi

The appeal was dismissed because the appellants failed to show any misdirection by the court a quo in its factual findings. The court found that AMSA had demonstrated exceptional circumstances due to significant ongoing financial losses and injury to goodwill, which constituted irreparable harm. The economic impact extended beyond AMSA to downstream businesses and employees. The harm to the appellants, being regulatory in nature, was not substantiated, especially given the absence of prospects of success on appeal. The court deferred to the factual findings of the court a quo and concluded th…

Source excerpt

• Waste Management Licensing
• Exceptional Circumstances
• Irreparable Harm
• Suspension Of Execution
• Superior Courts Act Section 18

Minister of Environmental Affairs and Another v Arcelomittal South Africa Limited (A103/2019, 86171/2016)

Minister of Environmental Affairs and Another v Arcelomittal South Africa Limited (A103/2019, 86171/2016) [2019] ZAGPPHC 287 (27 June 2019)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A103/2019, 86171/2016

Judges

WHG van der Linde, N Ranchod, E M Kubushi

High Court appeal against an order lifting suspension pending appeal was dismissed. The court upheld findings of exceptional circumstances and irreparable harm.

• Superior Courts Act Section 18
• Exceptional Circumstances
• Irreparable Harm
• Waste Management Licensing
• Judicial Deference
• Public Importance

Gauteng Department of Agriculture and Rural Development and Others v Interwaste (Pty) Ltd and Others (458/2018)

Gauteng Department of Agriculture and Rural Development and Others v Interwaste (Pty) Ltd and Others (458/2018) [2019] ZASCA 68; [2019] 3 All SA 344 (SCA) (30 May 2019)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

458/2018

Judges

Navsa ADP, Swain JA, Zondi JA, Molemela JA, Weiner AJA

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that Interwaste’s waste licence expired after four years and was not renewable by implication. The compliance notice was set aside in the High Court and the appeal succeeded.

• Waste Management Licensing
• Compliance Notice
• Effluxion Of Time
• Legality Principle
• Review Of Administrative Action
• Waste-management-licence

Minister of Environmental Affairs and Another v Arcelomittal South Africa Limited (86171/2016)

Minister of Environmental Affairs and Another v Arcelomittal South Africa Limited (86171/2016) [2019] ZAGPPHC 1031 (14 March 2019)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

86171/2016

Judge

Molefe

The High Court granted leave to appeal and ordered its earlier judgment to operate pending appeal, finding public-importance issues under waste law and exceptional circumstances.

• National Environmental Management Waste Act
• Waste Management Licensing
• Retrospective Application Of Statutes
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Exceptional Circumstances Execution
• Irreparable Harm

Upper Highway Air NPC v Enviroserv Waste Management (Pty) Ltd and Others (3692/2017)

Upper Highway Air NPC v Enviroserv Waste Management (Pty) Ltd and Others (3692/2017) [2018] ZAKZDHC 37 (31 July 2018)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

3692/2017

Judge

Koen

The court held that while the plaintiff's particulars of claim are lengthy and sometimes narrative, most of the exceptions raised by the defendants do not strike at the root of the claim and can be pleaded to meaningfully. However, certain paragraphs are vague and embarrassing, specifically where the plaintiff fails to identify the written instructions, statutory and regulatory provisions, by-laws, and directions relied upon, and where the extent of the alleged common law duty of care is not pleaded. The court found that declarations regarding fitness and propriety for licensing purposes are…

Source excerpt

• National Environmental Management Act
• Waste Management Licensing
• Vague And Embarrassing Pleading
• Common Law Duty Of Care
• Appropriate Relief
• Constitutional Damages

Upper Highway Air NPC v Enviroserve Waste Management (Pty) Ltd and Others (3692/2017)

Upper Highway Air NPC v Enviroserve Waste Management (Pty) Ltd and Others (3692/2017) [2018] ZAKZDHC 21 (21 June 2018)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

3692/2017

Judge

Ploos van Amstel

The court refused a postponement and dismissed an urgent interdict against a landfill operator, holding that environmental regulators should continue managing the dispute.

• Waste Management Licensing
• Interdict Pendente Lite
• Ministerial Discretion
• Public Nuisance
• Judicial Review
• Balance Of Convenience