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
VIF Limited v Mathungwa and Others (31/00) [2000] SZSC 26 (13 December 2000); 
EL Index Injunction Injunctions and interdicts Civil Remedies Locus standi in environmental litigation Litigation of environmental issues Environmental law Land use Human exploitation of the environment Environmental lawVIF Limited v Vuvulane Irrigation Farmers Association (Public) Company and Another (30/00) [2000] SZSC 27 (13 December 2000); EL Index Injunction Injunctions and interdicts Civil Remedies Locus standi in environmental litigation Litigation of environmental issues Environmental law Sustainable development Concepts and principles Environmental law Land use Human exploitation of the environment Environmental lawInkhanyeti Yekusasa Investments (Pty) Limited v Bennett ((444/2004)) [2004] SZHC 159 (12 November 2004); EL Index Locus standi in environmental litigation Litigation of environmental issues Environmental law Injunction Injunctions and interdicts Civil Remedies Land use Human exploitation of the environment Environmental lawMHP Geomatics Swaziland (Pty) Ltd t/a Swaziland Surveys v Umbane (Pty) Limited (4236/2007) [2009] SZHC 186 (10 August 2009); EL Index Locus standi in environmental litigation Litigation of environmental issues Environmental law Land use Human exploitation of the environment Environmental law Summary Judgment Civil RemediesIn this case, the High Court had to consider an application for summary judgement. The plaintiff sought judgement to be ordered in the sum of E130373.77 for professional services it rendered to the defendant, plus mora interest and cost of suit. By means of this procedure for summary judgement, a defence of no substance can be disposed of without putting the plaintiff to the expense of a trial.
The plaintiff argued that it was faced with a defence of no substance and that a summary judgement should accordingly be granted.
The court held that in order to determine whether a summary judgement could be granted, it was necessary to evaluate whether the defendant had raised a triable issue. Relying on the judgement in Mater Delarosa High School v RMJ Stationary (Pty) Ltd unreported Appeal Case No. 3/2005, the court held that they would refuse to grant a summary judgement if there was a reasonable possibility that this would cause an injustice.
The court found that a number of issues needed to be decided in the course of a trial and not ignored by granting a summary judgement. Most crucially, a trial was necessary to decide when payment of the plaintiff was due. Given these circumstances, the court found that it would be premature to dismiss the defence and that doing so, by granting a summary judgement, would possibly cause an injustice.
Accordingly, the application for summary judgement was dismissed by the court and costs were ordered in the cause.
 |
 |
 |