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
Ehlers and Others v Rand Water Board (484/2004) [2005] ZASCA 122; (30 November 2005); 
EL Index Protected areas (general) Environmental decision-making Environmental law Role of state in relation to environment Actors in environmental law Environmental law Environmental duties Concepts and principles Environmental law Precautionary and preventive principles Concepts and principles Environmental law Environmental impact and risk assessment Environmental decision-making Environmental lawChief Pule Shadrack VII Bareki NO and Another v Gencor Limited and Others (19895/03) [2005] ZAGPHC 109; (19 October 2005); EL Index Environmental damages Environmental remedies Civil Remedies Pollution and waste management offences Criminal offences in environmental law Environmental law Environmental duties Concepts and principles Environmental law Healthy environment Substantive rights Human RightsThis case considered an application for an exception to the plaintiffs’ particulars of claim. The plaintiff’s claim was based on the alleged degradation of the environment caused by mining activities conducted over a number of years.
The court considered whether the provisions of s28 of the National Environmental Management Principles (NEMA) were retrospective.
The court applied the common law rebuttable presumption against retrospectivity. In the circumstances, the court considered the nature of the duty; enforcement of the duty; what the legislature intended; when the transactions were completed and other alleged indications of retrospectivity. The court found that the presumption against retrospectivity was not disturbed, and was not applicable in this instance because the legislature could not have intended such.
The court considered whether there was proper or substantial compliance with s 28(12) of NEMA. As with the first claim, the court applied the principle of retrospectivity. Accordingly, the court held that the exception to the first alternative claim that it lacks averments necessary to sustain a cause of action must also be upheld because it avers retrospectivity.
In terms of the second alternative claim, the court held that the exception should be dismissed.
Regarding the third and fourth alternative claims, which were based on regulations that no longer had the force of law, the court found them to lack averments necessary to sustain a cause of action. Accordingly, the court upheld the third and fourth exceptions which related to these claims.
 |
 |
 |