ESCARPMENT ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION GROUP & LANGKLOOF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE v DEPARTMENT OF WATER AFFAIRS & WER MINING (PTY) LTD, 2011 (UNREPORTED, WT 25/11/2009)

This case study details a legal challenge by the Escarpment Environmental Protection Group (EEPOG) and the Langkloof Environmental Committee against the Department of Water and Environmental Affairs and WERM Mining (Pty) Ltd. The appellants sought to set aside a water use licence issued for the Langkloof Colliery in Mpumalanga, arguing that the licence was granted without inviting comments from interested parties as required by the National Water Act 36 of 1998. The Water Tribunal dismissed the appeal, ruling that the appellants lacked locus standi (legal standing) because they did not fall within the specific class of persons entitled to appeal under section 148(1) of the National Water Act.

• The Water Tribunal dismissed the appeal against the water use licence granted to WERM Mining (Pty) Ltd on 24 October 2008, ruling that the Escarpment Environmental Protection Group and the Langkloof Environmental Committee lacked locus standi to bring the appeal.
• The Tribunal determined that it is a creature of statute with sporadic rather than inherent jurisdiction, meaning it can only perform actions empowered by its enabling legislation.
• The Tribunal held that if no notice was published in the media as required by section 41(4) of the National Water Act (NWA), no right of appeal under section 148(1)(f) of the NWA is created for any objector.
• The Tribunal rejected the argument that the National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998, specifically the requirement to consider the interests of all affected parties in section 2(4)(g), should override the provisions of the National Water Act, stating the two statutes are of equal standing and regulate different situations.
• The Tribunal clarified that the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, 2000 does not provide for internal appeal procedures and that the Tribunal is not an administrative review body; parties seeking administrative review must approach the courts.

APA

Centre for Environmental Rights (2011). ESCARPMENT ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION GROUP & LANGKLOOF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE v DEPARTMENT OF WATER AFFAIRS & WER MINING (PTY) LTD, 2011 (UNREPORTED, WT 25/11/2009). https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/EEPOG-v-DWAF-and-WER.pdf?x21779

Chicago

Centre for Environmental Rights. ESCARPMENT ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION GROUP & LANGKLOOF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE v DEPARTMENT OF WATER AFFAIRS & WER MINING (PTY) LTD, 2011 (UNREPORTED, WT 25/11/2009). 2011. https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/EEPOG-v-DWAF-and-WER.pdf?x21779.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=Centre for Environmental Rights |title=ESCARPMENT ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION GROUP & LANGKLOOF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE v DEPARTMENT OF WATER AFFAIRS & WER MINING (PTY) LTD, 2011 (UNREPORTED, WT 25/11/2009) |date=2011 |url=https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/EEPOG-v-DWAF-and-WER.pdf?x21779 |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{centreforenvironmentalrights2011escarpment, author = {{Centre for Environmental Rights}}, title = {{ESCARPMENT ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION GROUP \& LANGKLOOF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE v DEPARTMENT OF WATER AFFAIRS \& WER MINING (PTY) LTD, 2011 (UNREPORTED, WT 25/11/2009)}}, institution = {Centre for Environmental Rights}, year = {2011}, url = {https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/EEPOG-v-DWAF-and-WER.pdf?x21779}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }