Ecolex Logo
The gateway to
environmental law
Search results » Jurisprudence

Verstappen v. Port Edward Town Board and others

Country/Territory
South Africa
Type of court
Others
Date
Nov 24, 1993
Source
UNEP, InforMEA
Court name
High Court of South Africa
Judge
Magid
Reference number
Case No. 4645/93
Language
English
Subject
Legal questions, Waste & hazardous substances
Keyword
Pollution control Access-to-justice Legal proceedings/administrative proceedings Land-use planning Waste disposal Waste management Solid waste
Abstract
The applicant was co-owner of properties within the jurisdiction of the first respondent local authority. One of the properties was adjacent to a worked quarry and the other opposite it. In 1985 the respondent started using the quarry area as a site for waste disposal. The applicant sought an injunction against the respondents from using the quarry and for the removal of the rubbish. The applicant complained that the use of the site for waste disposal was a nuisance, illegal and contrary to the Environment Conservation Act 1989. The respondent opposed the application for an injunction. The case raised a number of issues, including the locus standi of the applicant. On this point the court held that in order to determine whether a member of the public has locus standi to prevent the commission of an act prohibited by statute, the first inquiry was whether the legislature prohibited the doing of the act in the interests of only a particular person or class of persons or whether it was merely in the general public interest. If the former, any person who belonged to the class of persons in whose interest the doing of the act had been prohibited was allowed to interdict the act without proof of any special damage. If not, the applicant had to prove that he had suffered or would suffer such special damage as a result of doing the act. The court was satisfied that there was no basis for holding that the applicant belonged to a special class of persons in whose interest the act was passed as the provisions were intended to operate in the intent of the public at large. Thus the applicant had to show that the contravention of the Act by the respondent had caused or was likely to cause her special damage. The applicant stated that the value of her property had been diminished by reason of its proximity to a waste disposal site. The court was of the view that without expert evidence in that regard, it was not possible to hold that a property’s value was diminished by reason of its proximity to a waste disposal site rather than a disused quarry in the same position. The court therefore held that there was inadequate evidence that she had suffered any special damage at all. The applicant had not therefore established locus standi to interdict the respondent form continuing with its unlawful operation.
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 81