Minister of Water Affairs and Forestry v Stilfontein Gold Mining Company Limted and Others Country/Territory South Africa Type of court Others Date May 15, 2006 Source UNEP, InforMEA Court name High Court of South Africa Seat of court Johannesburg Judge Hussain Reference number (2006) ZAGPHC 47 Language English Subject Water, Mineral resources Keyword Mining Enforcement/compliance Abstract The applicant in this case was the Minister of Water Affairs and Forestry. The respondent companies operated gold mines. The mining activities of the respondents in a particular area had resulted in a situation where underground water would, if not raised to the surface and treated appropriately, become polluted and this would in turn result in the pollution of valuable water resources. This was the principal interest of the applicant. The first respondent had under its control a shaft which required the daily pumping of water from the shaft to the surface. Failure to manage this water would not only lead to pollution but would have disastrous effects on other mines in the area operated by another respondent. Failure to pump water from the shaft would result in serious flooding of the shafts operated by the ninth respondent with the consequential loss of property and potentially the lives of miners working in these mines. In order to find a solution for the management of the water the Regional Director, Free State, had issued directives to the mines. As a consequence of the first respondent’s failure to comply with the directives, the applicant obtained a court order in terms of which the first respondent was ordered to comply with the provisions of the directives issued by the Director-General. Notwithstanding the order granted by the court the first respondent failed to comply and the applicant brought this application. The respondents, inter alia, relied on the following defenses: (a) The matter was not urgent and ought to be struck off the roll. (b) The respondents did not receive notice of the court order. (c) The nature of the court order was such that contempt proceedings were inappropriate. (d) The directive was, in material parts, unintelligible and therefore not capable of being complied with. (e) The first respondent was, due to its financial status, unable to comply with the directives. The court dealt with each of these defences. In conclusion, the court directed that the first to fifth respondents were declared to be in contempt of the order of the court and they were sentenced to a fine. Full text 47.html