Browse all documents

KEBBLE v MINISTER OF WATER AFFAIRS (2007) JDR 0872 (SCA)

Report an error

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 case study examines the Supreme Court of Appeal's decision in KEBBLE v MINISTER OF WATER AFFAIRS (2007), where the court overturned a contempt of court order against the former directors of Stilfontein Gold Mining Company (SGM). The court ruled that the directives issued by the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry regarding the pumping and treatment of underground water in the KOSH basin were too vague and unenforceable to justify criminal sanctions for contempt.

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 Supreme Court of Appeal established that a person can only be held liable for contempt of court if the court order in question is clear and capable of implementation. In this case, the court found the directives issued by the Regional Director of the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry in the Free State to be "unclear, unintelligible and unenforceable in a number of respects."
  • The court identified the "principal difficulty" of the directives as the apportionment of costs, noting that the specific amount, the recipient of the payment, and the payment date were not determined. The court rejected the Department's argument that other mining companies had not experienced similar confusion regarding payment modalities.
  • The court ruled that the requirements for pumping water and maintaining infrastructure for underground water management were "largely beyond the control of SGM". Additionally, the requirement for SGM to determine its historic liabilities for water treatment in the KOSH basin was deemed "unclear" and also beyond the company's control.
  • The court determined that performance was only "due" on 30 June 2005, meaning that contempt proceedings initiated before this date were premature. This conclusion ignored the environmental impact of daily non-compliance, specifically the filling of the basin with water and the resulting conditions that facilitate the generation of acid mine drainage.

Cite the original document

APA
Centre for Environmental Rights (n.d.). KEBBLE v MINISTER OF WATER AFFAIRS (2007) JDR 0872 (SCA). https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Kebble-v-Minister-of-Water-Affairs.pdf?x21779
Chicago
Centre for Environmental Rights. KEBBLE v MINISTER OF WATER AFFAIRS (2007) JDR 0872 (SCA). n.d. https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Kebble-v-Minister-of-Water-Affairs.pdf?x21779.
Wikipedia
{{cite report |author=Centre for Environmental Rights |title=KEBBLE v MINISTER OF WATER AFFAIRS (2007) JDR 0872 (SCA) |url=https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Kebble-v-Minister-of-Water-Affairs.pdf?x21779 |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}
BibTeX
@techreport{centreforenvironmentalrightsndkebble, author = {{Centre for Environmental Rights}}, title = {{KEBBLE v MINISTER OF WATER AFFAIRS (2007) JDR 0872 (SCA)}}, institution = {Centre for Environmental Rights}, url = {https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Kebble-v-Minister-of-Water-Affairs.pdf?x21779}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }

Full text

Collected · Record updated