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
Rostock CC and Another v Van Biljon (I 844/2010) [2011] NAHC 259 (14 June 2011); 
EL Index Minerals, oil and gas Minerals and energy Environmental lawIn this case the court provided reasons for granting an interlocutory application to prohibit the respondent from mining on private land pending the outcome of an action for eviction of the respondent.
The applicants alleged that the respondent breached his obligation to rehabilitate the land and provide suitable accommodation for the employees. The court observed that the respondent’s replies to these two aspects were bizarre and that the applicants had made a strong case for cancelling the agreement. Consequently, the court held that the relief sought was justified on the merits of the case.
The court went on to observe that, based on the application of the doctrine of res litigiosa (subject of a pending action) according to Namibian law. The court observed that the right to mine generally fell within the meaning of alienating property as per the common law principle of res litigiosa. However, the provision in the Minerals Act provided that the plaintiff in a pending action for delivery of the res (property) would not automatically become entitled to an interdict against the miner.
The court applied the Webster v Mitchell test as read with the provisions of the Minerals Act. Consequently, it held that even if it was open to some doubt that the mining agreement was validly cancelled, the applicant became entitled to an interdict, with no need to comply with the further requirement to obtain an interim interdict.
Accordingly, the court was satisfied that the applicant was entitled to the relief granted.
S v Mbali (No Case Number) [1990] NAHC 391 (27 March 1990); 1990 NR 1 (HC) EL Index Procedural Fairness Justice and fairness Civil Procedure Minerals, oil and gas Minerals and energy Environmental lawThe matter dealt with an application by the state to recall witnesses in a trial in which the accused stood charged in the main count with theft of diamonds, or alternatively with possession of diamonds in contravention of Proclamation 17 of 1939. The court had dismissed the main charge on the basis that the link between the objects which were found in possession of the accused, and which were ultimately valued and identified as rough and uncut diamonds, did not exist. However, the state relied on the alternative and requested the court to recall witnesses to prove that these objects were in fact rough and uncut diamonds.
The main issue was whether it was necessary to recall witnesses for the fair adjudication of a case.
The court stated that where the evidence of a witness was necessary for the fair adjudication of the case, the court was obliged in terms of s 167 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 to recall that witness or those witnesses.
The court established that the evidence was necessary for the fair adjudication of the case between the State and the accused, in the sense that a person who was guilty on that charge might be acquitted but that the giving of such evidence would not lead to an innocent person possibly being found guilty.
The court, therefore, held that the evidence was essential for the fair adjudication of the case and granted the application by the state.
Fish Orange Mining Consortium (Pty) Ltd v!Goaseb and Others (CASE NO: I 582/2010) NAHCMD 154 (08 June 2018); EL Index Procedural Fairness Justice and fairness Civil Procedure Minerals, oil and gas Minerals and energy Environmental lawCivil Procedure – application for absolution from the instance – Rules of Court - Rule 100 – principles governing the application discussed – requirement for absolution from the instance - whether or not the plaintiff set out a prima facie case – Law of Evidence - whether failure to examine an expert who has filed his report results in the court attaching no value to the expert report – commercial value attached to the Exclusive Prospecting Licence – court’s discretion on how the value of the EPL License is computed.
Luxury Investments One Hundred and Ninety Two (Pty) and Another v Koujo and Others (HC-MD-CIV-MOT-REV-2017/00411) [2018] NAHCMD 390 (28 November 2018); EL Index Procedural Fairness Justice and fairness Civil Procedure Minerals, oil and gas Minerals and energy Environmental lawPractice – Judgments and orders – Application for stay of execution of judgment pending appeal to Supreme Court – Court having jurisdiction to determine matter in terms of its inherent jurisdiction where dictates of real and substantial justice required it.
Genesis Mining SYndicate v Muguti and 3 Others (HC 1549/21) [2022] ZWBHC 23 (27 January 2022); Environmental law Minerals and energy Environmental law Energy Minerals and energy Environmental law Mining and Resources Law Mineral Rights Ownership Mining and Resources Law Index EL IndexThe applicant sought an interdict whereby the respondents and their agents were ordered to stop milling operations in a specific mining area.
In 2019, the applicant submitted an application for a Special Grant, which was granted by the Ministry of Mines and Mining Development (Ministry). In terms of the Special Grant, the applicant was authorised to carry out mining operations in an area covered by the said Special Grant.
In 2021, the applicant dispatched its employees and heavy machinery to the area to commence mining operations. However, its employees were met and threatened by the respondents’ employees, who claimed that the area had been allocated to them. They could not, however, produce any documentation to this effect.
The court looked at the requirements for the granting of an interdict. Firstly, a prima facie right must be established. Secondly, a well-grounded apprehension of irreparable harm must exist. Thirdly, there must exist no other remedy and, lastly, the balance of convenience must favour the applicant. The court held that the applicant has satisfied all the requirements. It held that the respondents failed to show any lawful right for their interference in the applicant’s mining operations. The order was granted.
 |
 |
 |