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

This fact sheet summarizes the case of Minister of Water Affairs and Forestry v Stilfontein Gold Mining Company Limited & Others, where the court initially held a mining company and its directors in contempt for failing to comply with water pumping directives. The court rejected defenses based on financial hardship and the mass resignation of directors, asserting that environmental obligations cannot be avoided through corporate restructuring or resignation. However, the contempt order was later overturned on appeal.

• Hussain J found that the directives issued by the Regional Director of Water Affairs and Forestry were intelligible and clear, noting that other mines in the KOSH area had no difficulty understanding the requirements and that the respondents could have sought clarity from the state attorney.
• The court rejected the argument that the directives were orders 'ad pecuniam solvendam' (obligations to pay money) which would preclude a contempt order. It ruled that the obligation to contribute to shared pumping costs was a consequence of a mandatory order to collect, extract, and treat underground water, and not a commercial judgment debt.
• The court determined that SGM had not provided sufficient credible evidence to prove it was financially incapable of complying with the court order, pointing to a 2004 annual report showing total cash and cash equivalents of R5 639 000.
• The court ruled that the mass resignation of SGM's directors was an irresponsible act and not done in good faith, stating that directors cannot avoid their duties or environmental obligations by simply resigning from a company.
• 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 exploit resources for profit and then abandon their environmental responsibilities.
• The first to fifth respondents were found in contempt of court and each sentenced to a fine of R15 000, with a penalty of 6 months imprisonment if payment was not made.
• The contempt order granted by Hussain J was subsequently set aside on appeal in the case of Kebble v The Minister of Water Affairs and Forestry 2007 JDR 0872 (SCA).

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} }