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
Letsoela and Another v Letsoela (CIV/A/17/81) (CIV/A/17/81) [1983] LSCA 80 (02 September 1983); 
EL Index Injunction Injuctions and interdicts Civil Remedies Plants, forests and forestry (flora) Flora and fauna Environmental law African customary law and rights of indigenous peoples Human and environmental rights Environmental lawMatsoso v Khasoane (CIV/A/3/83) (CIV/A/3/83) [1983] LSHC 63 (16 December 1983); EL Index Private prosecutions Criminal offences in environmental law Environmental law African customary law and rights of indigenous peoples Human and environmental rights Environmental law Intergenerational and intra-generational equity Concepts and principles Environmental lawThis matter dealt with an appeal for a decision taken by the Magistrate’s Court to set aside the Local Court’s decision to absolve from the matter about the ownership of a certain piece of arable land.
It was the appellant’s case that while he was out of the country the chieftainship had deprived him of the land and reallocated it to the respondent who since used it. The respondent argued that the chief had rightly allocated the land to him and that the appellant had never been an occupant of said land. The appellant contended that a former directive issued by the court to make a determination of the ownership of the land when a dispute about the ownership arose before, had not been fulfilled and therefore the land would belong to him by default, as he had inherited it.
The High Court found that the issue was never resolved because the chieftainess could not confront the appellant with either of the two tenants whom he had given permission to stay on the land or the witness to the inheritance. Therefore, the appropriateness of the reallocation would have to be determined by senior chiefs before it could be brought to a competent court of law which was the Central Court and not the Local Court. The courts of law had, therefore, no jurisdiction on the matter before it had first been exhausted by the chieftainship in accordance with the Land Act of 1973 and the appeal was thus dismissed.
 |
 |
 |