Browse all documents

Summary

AI-generated

This summary is written by a language model reading the source document. It is not the publisher's words and is not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment

This filing notice and updated practice note, submitted by the Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) on December 8, 2020, outlines an appeal in the High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Pretoria). The appeal challenges a Water Tribunal decision that dismissed a previous appeal against the granting of a water use licence (WUL) to Atha-Africa Ventures (Pty) Ltd by the Department of Water and Sanitation.

Key insights

AI-generated

These insights are written by a language model reading the source document. They are not the publisher's words and are not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment
  • The Appellants, the Endangered Wildlife Trust and the Federation for a Sustainable Environment, seek to set aside the Water Tribunal's decision from May 22, 2019, and dismiss Atha-Africa Ventures (Pty) Ltd's application for a water use licence under section 40 of the National Water Act 36 of 1998.
  • The appeal raises several legal questions regarding the Water Tribunal's conduct, including whether it failed to consider the strategic importance of the mine area for biodiversity and water security under section 27 of the National Water Act (NWA).
  • The Appellants argue that the Water Tribunal erred in treating the consent requirement of section 24 of the NWA as a non-decisive factor rather than a jurisdictional requirement that must be met before a water use licence is granted.
  • The Appellants contend that the Water Tribunal failed to correctly apply the precautionary principle under section 2(4)(a)(vii) of the National Environment Management Act (NEMA), resulting in a licence grant despite a high risk that negative water impacts were underestimated.
  • A central point of contention is the lack of provision for the treatment of contaminated water after the mine closes and the absence of evidence regarding financial provisions for such measures.
  • The CER defends its role as a public interest law organisation and non-profit juristic entity, arguing that its advocacy for environmental positions while representing clients is consistent with the Legal Practice Act.
  • Seven organisations have applied to intervene as amici curiae, including the Southern African Human Rights Defenders Network, Legal Resources Centre, Centre for Applied Legal Studies, Section27, Equal Education Law Centre, Ndifuna Ukwazi, and the Centre for Child Law.

Cite the original document

APA
Centre for Environmental Rights (2020). FILING NOTICE. https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/A155_19-_Appellants-updated-practice-note_searchable.pdf?x21779
Chicago
Centre for Environmental Rights. FILING NOTICE. 2020. https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/A155_19-_Appellants-updated-practice-note_searchable.pdf?x21779.
Wikipedia
{{cite report |author=Centre for Environmental Rights |title=FILING NOTICE |date=8 December 2020 |url=https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/A155_19-_Appellants-updated-practice-note_searchable.pdf?x21779 |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}
BibTeX
@techreport{centreforenvironmentalrights2020filing, author = {{Centre for Environmental Rights}}, title = {{FILING NOTICE}}, institution = {Centre for Environmental Rights}, year = {2020}, month = dec, url = {https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/A155_19-_Appellants-updated-practice-note_searchable.pdf?x21779}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }

Full text

Collected · Record updated