The Environmental Case Law Index is a collection of judgments from 10 African countries on topics relating to environmental law, both substantive and procedural. The collection focuses on cases where an environmental interest interacts with governmental or private interests.
Get started on finding judgments that are relevant to you by browsing the topic list on the left of the screen. Click the arrows next to the topic names to reveal a detailed list of sub-topics. Most judgments are accompanied by a short summary written by subject-area expert postgraduate students from the University of Cape Town.
Read also JIFA's Environmental Country Reports for SADC
Fuel Retailers Association of SA (Pty) Ltd v Director General, Environmental Management Mpumalanga and Others (530/05) [2006] ZASCA 154; (22 September 2006); 
Judicial Review Appeals and reviews Civil Procedure Environmental duties Concepts and principles Environmental law Environmental impact and risk assessment Environmental decision-making Environmental law Protected areas (general) Environmental decision-making Environmental law EL IndexThis was an appeal against the decision of the High Court to dismiss an application for review of an application for the setting aside of a decision made by the second respondent, the Member of the Executive Committee of the Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Environment, Mpumalanga (the MEC), and upheld on appeal by the first respondent, the Director General, Environmental Management, Mpumalanga, (the DG). The decision in question was to permit the construction of a filling station in White River. The appellant contended that the permission was given contrary to the provisions of the law.
The court observed that all environmental precautions had been taken into account by the scoping report. It found that the land had been rezoned by the local authority from special area to a business area, based on need and desirability. The court held that that the key factors’ in deciding to grant the application in the circumstance were: firstly, that the property had been rezoned from “special” to “business”; secondly, that no potential threatened plant and animal species were recorded during the site investigation; and, that all identified and perceived impacts were satisfactorily dealt with in the scoping report and the recommendations proposed were sufficient to minimize any negative impacts. Since all this were observed. The appellant case was dismissed with cost.
NAROK COUNTY COUNCIL & another v NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTMANAGEMENT AUTHORITY (NEMA) & another [2006] eKLR (Tribunal Appeal Net/o7 of 2006); (20 December 2006); EL Index Locus standi in environmental litigation Litigation of environmental issues Environmental law Environmental impact and risk assessment Environmental decision-making Environmental law Public participation Human and environmental rights Environmental law Animal welfare and rights Flora and fauna Environmental law Wildlife (fauna) Flora and fauna Environmental lawBogonko v National Environment Management Authority (2006) 1 KLR (E&L) (Miscellaneous Application 1535 of 2005); (20 July 2006); Judicial Review Appeals and reviews Civil Procedure Environmental impact and risk assessment Environmental decision-making Environmental law Public interest in environment Environmental decision-making Environmental law Urban planning Human exploitation of the environment Environmental law Minerals, oil and gas Minerals and energy Environmental law EL IndexThe applicant intended to erect a petrol station and submitted an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) report to the respondent for approval. The respondent did not, however, respond to the report within three months, as envisaged in the Environmental Management and Co-ordination Act. The applicant decided to proceed with the project, as permitted by section 58 (9) of the Act.
The respondent stopped the project and handed the applicant a letter to the effect that the proposal for the project had been rejected.
The applicant applied for judicial review orders and submitted that the respondent had failed to conduct public hearings to assess the acceptability of the proposal. Thus, the respondent could not interfere with the applicant’s statutory discretion under section 58 (9) of the Act.
The court had to decide whether the rejection by the respondent was binding and if the respondent had sufficient grounds for the rejection.
The court held that the remedy of judicial review deals with the process, but not the merits of the decision by a tribunal, therefore the respondent’s submission that the applicant should have appealed to the tribunal if aggrieved, was untenable.
Further, that members of the public were denied sufficient opportunity to respond and make their comments. The applicant could not blame the respondents for failing to comply with section 58 (9). The delay in giving the decision was only one month, which in view of the court, was reasonable in the circumstances.
Application dismissed.
PETER KINUTHIA MWANIKI & 2 others v PETER NJUGUNA GICHEHA & 3 others [2006] eKLR (Civil Case 313 of 2000); (05 June 2006); EL Index Injunction Injuctions and interdicts Civil Remedies Locus standi in environmental litigation Litigation of environmental issues Environmental law Environmental impact and risk assessment Environmental decision-making Environmental law Healthy environment Substantive rights Human RightsJAMII BORA CHARITABLE TRUST & ANOTHER v DIRECTOR GENERAL NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY & ANOTHER [2006] eKLR (Tribunal Referral Net 2/3/2005); (12 April 2006); Procedural Fairness Justice and fairness Civil Procedure Attribution of Costs Costs Civil Remedies Environmental impact and risk assessment Environmental decision-making Environmental law Wildlife (fauna) Flora and fauna Environmental law Land use Human exploitation of the environment Environmental law EL IndexThis was an appeal against the decision of the respondents refusing to issue an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Licence for the appellants’ housing project. The appellants asked the tribunal to set aside the decision and award costs of the appeal.
The respondents argued that they had received strong objections from members of the local community since the project was in a wildlife migratory corridor and dispersal area.
The tribunal determined whether the respondents were justified in their decision, subject to the objections, without considering if the objectives of the project could be met in absence of the project. The tribunal noted that the objecting stakeholders also found the project to be worthwhile. The tribunal found that the respondents failed by ascertaining that the views of the objecting stakeholders expressed the views of a significant section of the local community. The tribunal also found that the respondents failed to demonstrate that the potential adverse impacts could not be mitigated.
Based on these findings, the tribunal unanimously set aside the respondents’ decision and issued an EIA licence for the appellants’ project but on several conditions
Endere v Karen Roses Ltd (2006) 1 eKLR (E&L) (Civil Case 298 of 2005); (31 March 2006); EL Index Injunction Injuctions and interdicts Civil Remedies Environmental damages Environmental remedies Pollution and waste management offences Criminal offences in environmental law Environmental law Healthy environment Substantive rights Human Rights Environmental impact and risk assessment Environmental decision-making Environmental lawSylvia C. Endere v Karen Roses Ltd [2006] eKLR (Civil Case No. 298 of 2005); (31 March 2006); Injunction Injuctions and interdicts Civil Remedies Temporary Injunction Injuctions and interdicts Civil Remedies Environmental impact and risk assessment Environmental decision-making Environmental law Freshwater use Water and coasts Environmental law EL IndexThe court considered and application for an injunction to restrain the defendant from directing storm and waste water into the plaintiff’s dam, or into the neighboring dam.
The defendant had acceded to a request by the members of the community to desilt the dam at the primary school, but as the plaintiff submitted, had failed to conduct an environmental impact assessment before undertaking the rehabilitation of the dam. Further, that the storm water from the defendant’s farm had spilled over to the dam in her parcel of land, thereby polluting it and infringing her right to live in a clean environment.
The issue for determination by this court was whether the plaintiff had established a prima facie case to enable the court to grant her the order of injunction sought.
The court held that the defendant undertook the project before seeking the authority of the National Environmental Management Authority and had therefore not consulted with all parties likely to be affected by the dam in co-ordination with the NEMA, before rehabilitating the dam. Therefore, the defendant breached the law by channeling storm water into the neighboring dam, without first complying with the provisions of the Environmental Management Act and that the plaintiff was within her rights to seek an injunction.
Application successful.
 |
 |
 |