Natal Fresh Produce Growers’ Association and others v. Agroserve (Pty) Ltd and others Country/Territory South Africa Type of court Others Date Jan 19, 1990 Source UNEP, InforMEA Court name High Court of South Africa Judge Howard Reference number SA 749 (N) Language English Subject Agricultural & rural development, Cultivated plants, Legal questions, Waste & hazardous substances Keyword Access-to-justice Legal proceedings/administrative proceedings Hazardous substances Agricultural commodities Liability/compensation Plant protection Pesticides Abstract The plaintiffs sought an order to interdict the defendants from manufacturing and distributing hormonal herbicides in South Africa. The plaintiffs alleged that hormonal herbicides used in South Africa were transported through water and air and deposited on fresh produce growing within Natal damaging plants grown and owned by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs contended that the damage could not be prevented except by stopping the use of these herbicides in South Africa. The defendants said they were registered manufacturers and their activities were lawful and not wrongful. The court held that the legitimate interest alleged by plaintiff whom it claimed it was entitled to protect, namely promoting and protecting the interests of growers of all kinds of produce, did not amount to a direct and substantial interest in the action to interdict the manufacture and distribution of hormonal herbicides. At best the plaintiff had an indirect interest which did not give him locus standi. The plaintiffs’ allegations furthermore did not disclose that the defendant’s conduct was wrongful. The only connection between the activities of defendants and the damage-producing use of the herbicides by others was that the manufacture and distribution facilitated such use so that it could be regarded as a causa sine qua non of the use, but that in itself was not sufficient to saddle the manufacturers with legal responsibility for the conduct of the users nor was it sufficient to place plaintiffs’ cause of action in the established or traditional category of damage to property which was limited to damage to property caused by the defendant himself or by his agent or employee or some other person for whose actions he was legally responsible. The court decided accordingly, that it would be unreasonable to brand the defendants’ activities as wrongful merely because such herbicides had been used to the detriment of growers of fresh produce in Natal by one or more unidentifiable persons over whom the defendants had no control and for whose conduct they were not legally responsible. Full text Jud.Dec.Nat.pre.pdf Available in UNEP/UNDP/Dutch Government Joint Project on Environmental Law and Institutions in Africa, Compendium of Judicial Decisions on Matters related to Environment, National Decisions, Volume I, Page 387