GOVERNMENT OF THE PROVINCE OF THE EASTERN CAPE v.FRONTIER SAFARIS (PTY) LIMITED País/Territorio Sudáfrica Tipo de la corte Nacional - corte superior Fecha Sep 29, 1997 Fuente UNEP, InforMEA Nombre del tribunal High Court of South Africa Sede de la corte Bloemfontein Free State Juez SMALBERGER, P,E,GROSSKOPF, F.H.HARMS, PLEWMAN, J.J.A.STEICHER, A.J.A Idioma Inglés Materia Medio ambiente gen. Palabra clave Flora silvestre Zona protegida Fauna silvestre Parques nacionales Resumen This is an appeal brought against an order of the general Division of the supreme court of Ciskei dismissing the governments control, maintenance, development and management of the national nature reserves., through the Department of Agriculture Forestry and rural development.(the department) Originally, the government negotiated a loan from the Development Bank of Southern Africa in order to develop national reserves. The government's long-term object was the development of the reserves with a view largely to the promotion of tourism and it intended that the management of the reserves ultimately be undertaken by Ciskei citizens. In the original case , counsel for the respondent stated that, by virtue of the contract the government had abdicated its functions in relation to the management of the reserves and purported to transfer this entire function to the company. The government pointed out to section 19 of the Ciskei Nature Conservation Act (the Act) conferred to it the right of cancellation of the contract on the government. The court held that the provisions in the Act all suggest that the government was not intending to wash its hands of the obligation to manage the reserves. In addition it stated that on analysis of the contract one concludes that the government was exercising its powers. The contract in the courts view was not contrary to the Act and hence the case must be dismissed. On appeal the court stated that by vesting the control, maintenance, development and management of the reserves in the Department the legislature conferred authority or power on the Department to control, maintain, develop and manage the reserves. Having done so, unless the contrary appears to be the case, one must assume that the legislature intended the Department to exercise the authority or power and not someone else. Not being the direct repositories of public trust they are not permitted the same freedom to choose who shall exercise their powers. The court therefore concluded that the Department did not have authority to delegate its authority to manage the reserves to the respondent. The legislature and not the Department was the appropriate body to decide by whom the national nature reserves should be managed. The appellate court further held that the parties purported to vest the Department's authority to manage the reserves in the respondent. The Department had no authority to do so. Its attempt to do so amounts to an abdication of its authority to manage the reserves. The agreement of lease is therefore invalid.