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

The Supreme Court of Appeal ruled that the former directors of Stilfontein Gold Mining Company (SGM) could not be held in contempt of court because the directives issued by the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry were too vague to be implemented. The court found the directives lacked clarity on the apportionment of costs, payment recipients, and deadlines. The commentary criticizes this judgment for ignoring the environmental risks of SGM's failure to pump and treat underground water, which creates conditions for acid mine drainage, and for failing to hold directors accountable despite their mass resignation prior to contempt proceedings.

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 liability for contempt of court can only be imposed when a court order is actually capable of implementation.
  • The court determined that the directives issued by the Regional Director of the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry in the Free State were unenforceable due to vagueness, specifically regarding the 'apportionment of costs', as the payment amount, recipient, and due date were not specified.
  • The court ruled that performance of the directives was only 'due' on 30 June 2005, thereby disregarding the environmental impact of daily non-compliance in extracting and treating underground water, which leads to the filling of the basin and the potential generation of acid mine drainage.
  • The court found that requirements for pumping water and maintaining infrastructure for underground water management were 'largely beyond the control of SGM', and that the requirement to determine historic liabilities for water treatment was 'unclear'.

Cite the original document

APA
Centre for Environmental Rights (2007). 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). 2007. 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) |date=2007 |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{centreforenvironmentalrights2007kebble, author = {{Centre for Environmental Rights}}, title = {{KEBBLE v MINISTER OF WATER AFFAIRS (2007) JDR 0872 (SCA)}}, institution = {Centre for Environmental Rights}, year = {2007}, 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