Search Climate Insights Directory

The document contains the applicants' heads of argument in a legal matter before the High Court of South Africa, Mpumalanga Division. A coalition of seven non-profit organisations seeks the review and setting aside of a decision by the MEC for Agriculture, Rural Development, Land and Environmental Affairs to exclude four properties from the Mabola Protected Environment to facilitate the construction of an underground coal mine by Uthaka Energy (Pty) Ltd.

This document consists of the applicants' (defendants') heads of argument filed in the High Court of South Africa (Western Cape Division) on 15 May 2019. The applicants, including environmental lawyers and a community activist, are seeking an order to compel Mineral Sands Resources (Pty) Ltd (MSR) to disclose documents relevant to a defamation lawsuit. MSR is suing the applicants overS for statements made during a University of Cape Town course on 25 January 2017, which alleged that MSR operated its Tormin Mine in breach of mining, environmental, and land use planning laws. The applicants argue that the requested documents are essential to prove the truth of their statements and to protect their constitutional rights to freedom of speech and academic freedom.

This document contains the First Respondent's (the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment) heads of argument in a judicial review application brought by Earthlife Africa. The Minister argues that the application is fatally flawed because it relies on new evidence not presented during the original administrative decision-making process and seeks to treat the court as an appeal tribunal rather than a review court. The Minister contends that the environmental authorisation (EA) granted to Lephalale Coal Mines (Pty) Ltd was rational, reasonable, and compliant with the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA), specifically regarding need and desirability, climate change impacts, and public participation.

This document contains the Respondent's Heads of Argument filed by the Centre for Environmental Rights on behalf of the Vaal Environmental Justice Alliance (VEJA) in the Supreme Court of Appeal. The case concerns an appeal by ArcelorMittal South Africa Limited (AMSA) against a High Court judgment that ordered AMSA to provide VEJA with environmental records—specifically an Environmental Master Plan for its Vanderbijlpark site and records regarding the closure and rehabilitation of its Vaal Disposal site in Vereeniging—under the Promotion of Access to Information Act, 2000 (PAIA).

This document contains the heads of argument submitted on behalf of the Minister of Environmental Affairs, the Minister of Mineral Resources, and the MEC for Agriculture, Rural Development, Land and Environmental Affairs of Mpumalanga Province. The respondents oppose a judicial review application brought by several environmental organisations seeking to set aside the written permission granted to Atha Africa (Pty) Ltd to conduct underground mining within the Mabola Protected Environment (MPE). The respondents argue that the decision-making process was procedurally fair, that they were entitled to rely on interrelated statutory authorisation processes to avoid duplication, and that the permission was granted subject to stringent environmental and social conditions.

This document contains the heads of argument for an application for leave to appeal a High Court decision regarding the legality of mining operations conducted by Tendele Coal Mining (Pty) Limited. The applicants argue that the mining company failed to obtain necessary environmental authorizations under the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA), violated town planning legislation for new mining areas, operated without a required waste management license, and unlawfully relocated traditional graves.

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.