Short Heads of Argument for First Respondent

This document contains the Short Heads of Argument filed on 11 March 2021 by the First Respondent, Uthaka Energy (Pty) Ltd, in the High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Pretoria). Uthaka argues against an urgent application for an interim interdict brought by the Mining and Environmental Justice Community Network of South Africa and others, which seeks to stop the commencement of the Yzermyn Underground Coal-mining Project. Uthaka contends that it possesses all necessary statutory authorisations and that the application lacks urgency, a prima facie right, and a reasonable apprehension of irreparable harm.

• Uthaka argues that the application is not urgent because the planned activities for 24 March 2021 are limited to fencing 22.4 hectares, and full mining operations are not anticipated to start until August 2023, requiring approximately three years of preparatory work.
• The First Respondent contends that the Applicants' claims of irreparable environmental harm are unfounded and based on theoretical worst-case scenarios rather than site-specific evidence, asserting that all risks are manageable through mitigation and rehabilitation.
• Uthaka argues that the 'precautionary principle' cited by the Applicants does not serve as a veto for development but rather mandates a risk-averse approach to ensure appropriate mitigation and rehabilitation measures are in place to promote sustainable development.
• Uthaka disputes the Applicants' claim that its Mining Right has expired due to non-commencement under section 25(2)(b) of the MPRDA, stating that such non-compliance does not result in automatic expiry and that no cancellation or suspension has occurred.
• The First Respondent maintains that its Water Use Licence remains valid and operational, rejecting claims that it lapsed automatically due to time or non-compliance with a Water Tribunal order, noting that the required review was completed prior to the commencement of mining.
• Uthaka claims significant financial prejudice due to delays caused by the Applicants over the last decade, citing approximately R 107.7 million in wasted holding costs.
• Uthaka requests that the application be struck from the roll with punitive costs, alleging that the Applicants engaged in reckless and vexatious litigation by failing to provide referenced documents and attempting to mislead the Court.

APA

Centre for Environmental Rights (2021). Short Heads of Argument for First Respondent. https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/First-Respondent-Short-Heads-of-Argument-2021-03-12.pdf?x21779

Chicago

Centre for Environmental Rights. Short Heads of Argument for First Respondent. 2021. https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/First-Respondent-Short-Heads-of-Argument-2021-03-12.pdf?x21779.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=Centre for Environmental Rights |title=Short Heads of Argument for First Respondent |date=11 March 2021 |url=https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/First-Respondent-Short-Heads-of-Argument-2021-03-12.pdf?x21779 |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{centreforenvironmentalrights2021short, author = {{Centre for Environmental Rights}}, title = {{Short Heads of Argument for First Respondent}}, institution = {Centre for Environmental Rights}, year = {2021}, month = mar, url = {https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/First-Respondent-Short-Heads-of-Argument-2021-03-12.pdf?x21779}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }