SKM_28720070115330

This briefing consists of the Practice Note and Heads of Argument filed by the Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) as an amicus curiae in the Supreme Court of Appeal case Global Environmental Trust & 2 Others vs Tendele Coal Mining (Pty) Ltd & 8 Others. The CER argues that mining operations require both a mining right under the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act (MPRDA) and a separate environmental authorisation under the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA), challenging a lower court's ruling that an approved Environmental Management Plan (EMP) under the MPRDA suffices as environmental authorisation.

• The CER contends that a mining right and an approved Environmental Management Plan (EMP) under the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act (MPRDA) are not equivalent to, and should not be conflated with, a distinct environmental authorisation issued under the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA).
• The CER argues that the lower court's interpretation of NEMA is unsupported by the statute's plain language, as 'environmental authorisation' is defined as an authorisation 'under this Act' (NEMA), and an EMP approved under the MPRDA does not meet the definition of being issued by a 'competent authority' charged by NEMA to evaluate environmental impacts.
• The CER asserts that treating an EMP as a substitute for NEMA authorisation contradicts the constitutional mandate to give the right to a healthy environment the fullest possible effect, effectively sidestepping NEMA's peremptory requirements for evaluating pollution and environmental degradation.
• The CER challenges the lower court's ruling that section 28 of NEMA provides an adequate alternative remedy to an interdict, arguing that such a precedent would undermine the enforcement of NEMA through the courts and violate section 34 of the Constitution regarding access to courts.
• The CER argues that the lower court's costs order against the appellants creates a 'chilling precedent' and ignores the protections of section 32(2) of NEMA, which allows courts to decline awarding costs against those acting reasonably in the public interest or for environmental protection.

APA

Centre for Environmental Rights (n.d.). SKM_28720070115330. 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. SKM_28720070115330. n.d. 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=SKM_28720070115330 |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{centreforenvironmentalrightsndskm28720070115330, author = {{Centre for Environmental Rights}}, title = {{SKM\_28720070115330}}, institution = {Centre for Environmental Rights}, 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} }