ACWA’S HEADS OF ARGUMENT

This document contains the heads of argument submitted by ACWA Power to the Appeal Authority of the Nkangala District Municipality. ACWA argues that an appeal brought by the non-profit organization GroundWork against the transfer of a Provisional Atmospheric Emission Licence (PAEL) should be dismissed because GroundWork, as a third party, lacks the legal standing to appeal under section 62 of the Local Government Municipal Systems Act 32 of 2000.

• ACWA contends that GroundWork lacks the standing to appeal the Nkangala District Municipality's (NDM) decision to transfer a Provisional Atmospheric Emission Licence (PAEL) from Anglo Operations (Pty) Ltd to ACWA. This transfer was necessitated by the Department of Energy awarding ACWA preferred bidder status for the ACWA Power Khanyisa IPP Project under a coal baseload programme.
• ACWA relies on the 'Reader judgment' (Municipality of the City of Cape Town v Reader and Others) to argue that section 62 of the Systems Act only allows appeals from the 'dissatisfied applicant' who sought the permission and not from third parties. ACWA asserts that GroundWork is an uninvolved third party and therefore cannot be the 'aggrieved applicant' entitled to an internal remedy.
• ACWA argues that the Groenewald judgment does not provide an exception for GroundWork. While that judgment allowed 'disgruntled tenderers' to appeal because they were parties to the tender process and thus 'directly affected', ACWA claims GroundWork remains an indirect third party and does not fit this narrow 'carve-out'.
• ACWA asserts that section 62(3) of the Systems Act further precludes GroundWork's appeal because the law prohibits any variation or revocation of a decision that detracts from rights already accrued. ACWA argues that the NDM's approval of the PAEL transfer created an accrued right for ACWA, and a successful appeal by GroundWork would necessarily violate this protection.
• ACWA claims that GroundWork's true objective is not the administrative legality of the PAEL transfer, but rather the derailment of the ACWA Power Khanyisa IPP Project and the broader Department of Energy policy regarding coal baseload power generation.
• ACWA rejects GroundWork's argument that its status as a 'registered interested and affected party' under the National Environment Management: Air Quality Act (NEM:AQA) grants it standing under the Systems Act. ACWA maintains that registration under NEM:AQA does not make a party 'directly affected' for the purposes of the Systems Act.

APA

Centre for Environmental Rights (2018). ACWA’S HEADS OF ARGUMENT. https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/ACWA-Power-Heads-on-Jurisdiction-and-locus-standi-issue-12.11.18.pdf?x21779

Chicago

Centre for Environmental Rights. ACWA’S HEADS OF ARGUMENT. 2018. https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/ACWA-Power-Heads-on-Jurisdiction-and-locus-standi-issue-12.11.18.pdf?x21779.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=Centre for Environmental Rights |title=ACWA’S HEADS OF ARGUMENT |date=12 November 2018 |url=https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/ACWA-Power-Heads-on-Jurisdiction-and-locus-standi-issue-12.11.18.pdf?x21779 |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{centreforenvironmentalrights2018acwas, author = {{Centre for Environmental Rights}}, title = {{ACWA’S HEADS OF ARGUMENT}}, institution = {Centre for Environmental Rights}, year = {2018}, month = nov, url = {https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/ACWA-Power-Heads-on-Jurisdiction-and-locus-standi-issue-12.11.18.pdf?x21779}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }