SKM_28720072311360

This document consists of the heads of argument filed by Tendele Coal Mining (Pty) Limited (the First Respondent) in the Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa. The filing is a response to arguments submitted by an amicus curiae (the Centre for Environmental Rights) regarding whether mining operations commencing before 8 December 2014 required 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).

• Tendele Coal Mining (Pty) Limited argues that mining activities conducted before the 'One Environmental System' took effect on 8 December 2014 did not require a separate environmental authorisation under NEMA. The company contends that during that period, environmental impacts of mining were "regulated exclusively through the MPRDA" and specifically through the requirement to obtain an Environmental Management Programme (EMP).
• Tendele asserts that its proposed mining activities under a 2016 mining right are covered by transitional provisions in the NEMA Amendment Act and the 2014 Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations. Because the applications for the mining right and EMP were pending when the One Environmental System began, Tendele argues they should be adjudicated based on the law as it existed under the previous regime.
• Tendele disputes the legal authorities cited by the amicus curiae, claiming they do not support the proposition that both NEMA authorisation and an MPRDA EMP were required before the One Environmental System. Specifically, Tendele argues that findings in the Mineral Sands Resources case were "obiter dicta" and not binding, and that other cited cases, such as Fuel Retailers and Maccsand, do not address the specific interaction between the MPRDA and NEMA during the period in question.
• Tendele argues that the legislature deliberately chose to subject mining activities to the principles of NEMA as applied by the Department of Mineral Resources via the MPRDA, rather than making them subject to the pre-existing provisions of NEMA directly.

APA

Centre for Environmental Rights (n.d.). SKM_28720072311360. https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/1st-respondent-HOA-in-response-to-CER-amicus-HOA.pdf?x21779

Chicago

Centre for Environmental Rights. SKM_28720072311360. n.d. https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/1st-respondent-HOA-in-response-to-CER-amicus-HOA.pdf?x21779.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=Centre for Environmental Rights |title=SKM_28720072311360 |url=https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/1st-respondent-HOA-in-response-to-CER-amicus-HOA.pdf?x21779 |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{centreforenvironmentalrightsndskm28720072311360, author = {{Centre for Environmental Rights}}, title = {{SKM\_28720072311360}}, institution = {Centre for Environmental Rights}, url = {https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/1st-respondent-HOA-in-response-to-CER-amicus-HOA.pdf?x21779}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }