South Africa Case Law

Valobex 173 CC v Member of the Executive Council for Economic Development, Environment, Agriculture and Rural Development, Gauteng Provincial Government and Another (19803/2021)

Valobex 173 CC v Member of the Executive Council for Economic Development, Environment, Agriculture and Rural Development, Gauteng Provincial Government and Another (19803/2021) [2024] ZAGPJHC 83 (2 February 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

19803/2021

Judge

DN Unterhalter

The court found that both the HOD and MEC decisions were irrational, unlawful, and unreasonable because they failed to engage with the expert evidence showing that the wetland on the development site was so critically modified that it no longer possessed any ecological value. The decisions relied solely on the technical classification of the site as a wetland, without substantiating its environmental value, and imposed conditions that prevented development to protect something that did not require protection. The court held that there was no factual basis for the restrictive conditions and th…

Source excerpt

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Environmental Authorisation
• Irrationality
• Substitution Of Administrative Action
• Wetland Protection
• Unreasonableness

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

Ibuhubesi Ore Exploration (Pty) Limited v Department of Water Affairs and Sanitation (WT19/05/2011)

Ibuhubesi Ore Exploration (Pty) Limited v Department of Water Affairs and Sanitation (WT19/05/2011) [2018] ZAWT 1 (26 September 2018)

Court

Water Tribunal

Case number

WT19/05/2011

Judges

F Zondagh, T Murombo

The Water Tribunal remitted a refused water use licence application for reconsideration, finding procedural flaws, delay, and outdated evidence prevented substitution.

• Water Use Licensing
• National Water Act
• Procedural Fairness
• Judicial Review
• Wetland Protection
• Mining And Prospecting Regulation

City of Cape Town v Really Useful Investments 219 (Pty) Ltd (21106/2014)

City of Cape Town v Really Useful Investments 219 (Pty) Ltd (21106/2014) [2018] ZAWCHC 6; [2018] 2 All SA 65 (WCC) (2 February 2018)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

21106/2014

Judge

Gamble

The court held that the respondent unlawfully filled the Disa River floodplain and that the City could require removal and remediation under its by-law and the ECA.

• Stormwater Management By Law
• Environment Conservation Act Section 31a
• Wetland Protection
• Municipal Consent
• Remedial Measures
• Floodplain Management

Hentru Developers & Contractors CC v Hanekom NO and Another (35154/2003)

Hentru Developers & Contractors CC v Hanekom NO and Another (35154/2003) [2005] ZAGPHC 322 (21 September 2005)

Court

High Courts - Gauteng

Case number

35154/2003

Judge

Bertelsmann

The court found that the respondents' refusal of the applicant's application for written authorisation for township establishment was irrational and not supported by a proper consideration of the relevant facts. The respondents failed to address the actual environmental impact, particularly the existing commercial activities and the condition of the wetland, and relied on generalised concerns about urban sprawl and loss of agricultural land without substantiating these claims. The second respondent did not independently assess the appeal, merely repeating the first respondent's reasons and fa…

Source excerpt

• Environmental Authorisation
• Review Of Administrative Action
• Wetland Protection
• Urban Sprawl
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Land Use Management