SKM_28720081714000

This document consists of the practice note, list of authorities, and heads of argument filed by amicus curiae (Mpukunyoni Traditional Council, Mpukunyoni Community Mining Forum, Association of Mine Workers and Constructions Union, and National Union of Mine Workers) in the Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa. The amicus curiae argue against a prohibitory interdict that would close Tendele Coal Mining (Pty) Ltd's operations, asserting that the socio-economic impact on the community and the South African ferrochrome industry would be disastrous. They urge the court to use its discretion under section 172(1)(b) of the Constitution to grant alternative remedies, such as a structural interdict or a suspension of the interdict, to allow the mine to continue operating while it secures necessary environmental and land-use authorisations.

• The amicus curiae argue that closing Tendele Coal Mining's operations, even for a short period, would be financially disastrous for the company and the community, as resuming operations after a closure is costly and may be prohibitively expensive for a mine that has operated for over 10 years.
• Tendele Coal Mining is a critical supplier for the South African ferrochrome industry, providing approximately 80% of the required high-quality anthracite. A stoppage of operations could jeopardize the employment of about 20,000 people within that industry.
• The mine is the largest employer in its deep rural community of approximately 220,000 people. As of 2019, Tendele directly and indirectly employed over 1,500 people, with 80% originating from the local community.
• Community members and employees hold a 20% shareholding in Tendele following a 2015 BEE transaction, with the community owning 80% of that share and employees owning the remaining 20%.
• The amicus curiae contend that the court should apply section 172(1)(b) of the Constitution to balance competing interests and grant a just and equitable remedy, such as a structural interdict or suspension of the interdict, rather than a total closure of the mine.
• The appellants in the case represent less than 2% of the community members, while the majority of the community, represented by the amicus curiae, wish for the mining operations to continue.

APA

Centre for Environmental Rights (n.d.). SKM_28720081714000. https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/17082020-New-amicus-heads-of-argument.pdf?x21779

Chicago

Centre for Environmental Rights. SKM_28720081714000. n.d. https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/17082020-New-amicus-heads-of-argument.pdf?x21779.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=Centre for Environmental Rights |title=SKM_28720081714000 |url=https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/17082020-New-amicus-heads-of-argument.pdf?x21779 |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{centreforenvironmentalrightsndskm28720081714000, author = {{Centre for Environmental Rights}}, title = {{SKM\_28720081714000}}, institution = {Centre for Environmental Rights}, url = {https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/17082020-New-amicus-heads-of-argument.pdf?x21779}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }