MINISTER OF WATER AFFAIRS AND FORESTRY v STILFONTEIN GOLD MINING COMPANY LIMITED & OTHERS 2006 (5) SA 333 (W)

The court found the Stilfontein Gold Mining Company (SGM) and its four directors guilty of contempt of court for ignoring directives to pump underground water to prevent pollution and flooding. The judge rejected the directors' defense that their mass resignation and the company's financial status absolved them of responsibility, emphasizing that directors cannot 'walk away' from environmental obligations. However, this contempt order was subsequently set aside on appeal in Kebble v The Minister of Water Affairs and Forestry 2007 JDR 0872 (SCA).

• The court rejected the argument that the directives issued by the Regional Director of Water Affairs and Forestry were unintelligible, noting that other mines in the KOSH area understood them and that the respondents could have sought clarity.
• The court ruled that the obligation to contribute to shared water pumping costs was not a commercial 'judgment debt' (ad pecuniam solvendam) but an administrative requirement under the National Water Act 36 of 1998, making contempt proceedings an appropriate enforcement mechanism.
• The court found insufficient evidence to support the claim that SGM was financially incapable of complying with the order, pointing to a 2004 annual report showing cash and cash equivalents of R5 639 000 for which the directors provided no explanation of expenditure.
• The court determined that the mass resignation of SGM's directors was an irresponsible act intended to avoid legal obligations and that directors who cause a company to disobey a court order are themselves guilty of contempt.
• The judgment emphasized that allowing mining companies and directors to ignore environmental obligations is contrary to the Constitution, the National Environmental Management Act, and the Mineral Petroleum Development Act, as it would suggest companies can profit from resources and then abandon their environmental duties.
• The first to fifth respondents were sentenced to a fine of R15 000 each, with a penalty of 6 months imprisonment for non-payment, although this order was later set aside on appeal.

APA

Centre for Environmental Rights (n.d.). MINISTER OF WATER AFFAIRS AND FORESTRY v STILFONTEIN GOLD MINING COMPANY LIMITED & OTHERS 2006 (5) SA 333 (W). https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Minister-of-Water-Affairs-v-Stilfontein-Gold-Mining-Company.pdf?x21779

Chicago

Centre for Environmental Rights. MINISTER OF WATER AFFAIRS AND FORESTRY v STILFONTEIN GOLD MINING COMPANY LIMITED & OTHERS 2006 (5) SA 333 (W). n.d. https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Minister-of-Water-Affairs-v-Stilfontein-Gold-Mining-Company.pdf?x21779.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=Centre for Environmental Rights |title=MINISTER OF WATER AFFAIRS AND FORESTRY v STILFONTEIN GOLD MINING COMPANY LIMITED & OTHERS 2006 (5) SA 333 (W) |url=https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Minister-of-Water-Affairs-v-Stilfontein-Gold-Mining-Company.pdf?x21779 |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{centreforenvironmentalrightsndminister, author = {{Centre for Environmental Rights}}, title = {{MINISTER OF WATER AFFAIRS AND FORESTRY v STILFONTEIN GOLD MINING COMPANY LIMITED \& OTHERS 2006 (5) SA 333 (W)}}, institution = {Centre for Environmental Rights}, url = {https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Minister-of-Water-Affairs-v-Stilfontein-Gold-Mining-Company.pdf?x21779}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }