AMICUS (CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RIGHTS) PRACTICE NOTE

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER), acting as amicus curiae, argues that the KwaZulu-Natal High Court erred in ruling that Tendele Coal Mining (Pty) Ltd did not require a separate environmental authorisation under the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) for its operations. The CER contends that an Environmental Management Programme (EMP) approved under the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act (MPRDA) is not equivalent to a NEMA authorisation. The CER further argues that the High Court's refusal of interdictory relief based on the existence of alternative remedies under section 28 of NEMA is a dangerous precedent that undermines judicial enforcement of environmental rights. Finally, the CER seeks the overturning of a costs order against the appellants, asserting it creates a chilling effect and ignores the protections for public interest litigants provided in section 32(2) of NEMA.

• The CER argues that a mining right and an approved Environmental Management Programme (EMP) under the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act (MPRDA) are not equivalent to a distinct environmental authorisation issued under the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA).
• The CER asserts that the High Court's conclusion that no NEMA authorisation was required for Tendele Coal Mining (Pty) Ltd contradicts established case law, which maintains that mining activities involving listed activities require NEMA authorisation regardless of MPRDA approvals.
• The CER contends that interpreting an EMP as an environmental authorisation contradicts the plain language of NEMA, as an authorisation must be granted by a 'competent authority' charged by NEMA to evaluate environmental impacts.
• The CER argues that the High Court's ruling that section 28 of NEMA provides an adequate alternative remedy to an interdict is an unconstitutional ouster of judicial relief that would deprive litigants of a means to vindicate environmental rights.
• The CER argues that the costs order against the appellants creates a 'chilling precedent' and ignores section 32(2) of NEMA, which allows courts to avoid awarding costs against those acting reasonably in the public interest to protect the environment.

APA

Centre for Environmental Rights (2020). AMICUS (CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RIGHTS) PRACTICE NOTE. https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/01.07.2020-CER-Amicus-HOA-and-Practice-Note_served-and-filed.pdf?x21779

Chicago

Centre for Environmental Rights. AMICUS (CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RIGHTS) PRACTICE NOTE. 2020. https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/01.07.2020-CER-Amicus-HOA-and-Practice-Note_served-and-filed.pdf?x21779.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=Centre for Environmental Rights |title=AMICUS (CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RIGHTS) PRACTICE NOTE |date=1 July 2020 |url=https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/01.07.2020-CER-Amicus-HOA-and-Practice-Note_served-and-filed.pdf?x21779 |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{centreforenvironmentalrights2020amicus, author = {{Centre for Environmental Rights}}, title = {{AMICUS (CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RIGHTS) PRACTICE NOTE}}, institution = {Centre for Environmental Rights}, year = {2020}, month = jul, url = {https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/01.07.2020-CER-Amicus-HOA-and-Practice-Note_served-and-filed.pdf?x21779}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }