Browse all documents

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 Third Respondent, Atha-Africa Ventures (Pty) Ltd, submitted heads of argument to the High Court of South Africa (Mpumalanga Division) opposing a judicial review application by several environmental NGOs. The Applicants seek to set aside a decision to rezone Portion 1 of the Farm Yzermyn 96 HT from agricultural to mining use. The Third Respondent argues that the application is a strategic attempt by the 'Green Lobby' to delay the Yzermyn coal mine and that the environmental concerns raised have already been adjudicated and dismissed by the Water Tribunal and the Pretoria High Court.

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 Third Respondent argues that the current application to review the rezoning of one farm is a 'side show' to three other primary legal challenges launched by the Applicants: a review of the Water Use Licence (Case numbers A155/2019 and 86261/2019), a review of the mining right (Case number 73278/2015), and a review of the environmental authorisation (Case number 1390/2018).
  • The Third Respondent contends that the environmental risks, specifically regarding water sources, dewatering, and acid mine drainage, were extensively debated over a 10-day hearing by the Water Tribunal, which considered over 21 expert reports and ultimately rejected the Applicants' alarmist claims.
  • The Pretoria High Court upheld the Water Tribunal's decision in October 2022, rejecting the Applicants' submissions. The Applicants have since petitioned the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) for leave to appeal, and the Third Respondent argues this matter should be stayed pending the SCA's decision.
  • The proposed Yzermyn mine involves underground mining 1.2km below the surface across five farms. The Third Respondent asserts that this depth ensures minimal impact on surface biodiversity, grasslands, and the shallower water table.
  • The rezoning application specifically concerns 22.4 hectares of Portion 1 of the Farm Yzermyn 96 HT for surface infrastructure. The Third Respondent notes this land is outside the Mabola Protected Environment (MPE) and that no government policy prohibits mining in such areas provided necessary permits are obtained.
  • The Third Respondent claims the mine is strongly supported by the local community, citing a petition signed by 8,500 members who seek the socio-economic opportunities and jobs (initially estimated at 576) that the mine would provide in an impoverished area.
  • The Third Respondent argues that the First and Second Respondents correctly applied the 'precautionary principle' and the concept of 'sustainable development' under the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA), balancing environmental protection with socio-economic development.
  • Regarding the alleged failure to refer the application to the Minister under Section 52 of the Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act (SPLUMA), the Third Respondent argues that Section 30 is applicable, allowing the municipality to rely on existing authorisations from the Ministers of Mineral Resources, Water and Sanitation, and Environmental Affairs.

Cite the original document

APA
Centre for Environmental Rights (n.d.). THIRD RESPONDENT’S HEADS OF ARGUMENT. https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Third-Respondents-Heads-of-Argument-1344.20.pdf?x21779
Chicago
Centre for Environmental Rights. THIRD RESPONDENT’S HEADS OF ARGUMENT. n.d. https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Third-Respondents-Heads-of-Argument-1344.20.pdf?x21779.
Wikipedia
{{cite report |author=Centre for Environmental Rights |title=THIRD RESPONDENT’S HEADS OF ARGUMENT |url=https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Third-Respondents-Heads-of-Argument-1344.20.pdf?x21779 |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}
BibTeX
@techreport{centreforenvironmentalrightsndthird, author = {{Centre for Environmental Rights}}, title = {{THIRD RESPONDENT’S HEADS OF ARGUMENT}}, institution = {Centre for Environmental Rights}, url = {https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Third-Respondents-Heads-of-Argument-1344.20.pdf?x21779}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }

Full text

Collected · Record updated