Ecolex Logo
El portal del
derecho ambiental
Resultados de la búsqueda » Jurisprudencia

Wildlife Society of Southern Africa and others v. Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism of the Republic of South Africa and others

País/Territorio
Sudáfrica
Tipo de la corte
Nacional - corte superior
Fecha
Jun 27, 1996
Fuente
UNEP, InforMEA
Nombre del tribunal
Transkei Supreme Court
Juez
Pickering
Número de referencia
Case No. 1672/95
Idioma
Inglés
Materia
Tierra y suelos, Cuestiones jurídicas, Medio ambiente gen.
Palabra clave
Zona protegida Manejo de tierras Ordenación de áreas costeras Cumplimiento/aplicación Procedimientos judiciales/procedimientos administrativos Acceso-a-la-justicia
Resumen
The applicants applied for an order compelling the respondents to enforce the provisions of Decree 9 (Environment Conservation) 1992. The first applicant was the Wildlife Society of Southern Africa and the second its Conservation Director. The third and fourth applicants were two lawful occupiers of cottages located on the coast and members of the (Wild) Coast Cottage Owners’ Association. The first respondent was the Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, the second the Premier of the Eastern Cape, the third the Minister of Agriculture and Environmental Planning and the fourth to seventh respondents were the chiefs or headmen of the Eastern Cape. The applicants contented that the fourth to the seventh respondents had granted rights of occupation and allocated sites within the coastal conservation area to private individuals for very small considerations. Shacks, dwellings, roads, pathways and tracks had been constructed on the sites resulting in environmental degradation but, the applicants argued, the Ministers responsible had taken no preventive measures. The locus standi of the applicants was challenged but later conceded by reason of the provisions of S. 7(4)(b) read with S. 29 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act 200 of 1993. The Court remarked that apart from these constitutional provisions, there was much to be said for the view that when a statute imposed an obligation upon the State to take certain measures in order to protect the environment in the interests of the public, then a body such as the first applicant, with its main object being to promote environmental conservation in South Africa, should have locus standi at common law to apply for an order compelling the State to comply with its obligations in terms of such statute. One of the principal objections often raised against the adoption of a more flexible approach to the problem of locus standi was that the floodgates would thereby be opened, giving rise to an uncontrollable torrent of litigation. It was not certain that to afford locus standi to a body such as the first applicant in circumstances such as these would open the floodgates to a torrent of frivolous or vexatious litigation against the State by cranks or busybodies. Neither was it certain, given the exorbitant costs of Supreme Court litigation, that, should the law be so adapted, cranks and busybodies would flood the Courts with vexatious or frivolous applications against the State. Should they be tempted to do so, an appropriate order of costs would soon inhibit their litigious ardour. It might well be that the time had arrived for a re-examination of the common- law rules of standing in environmental matters involving the State and for an adaptation of such rules to meet the ever-changing needs of society. The court ordered the first respondent to take such steps necessary to enforce the provisions of S. 39 (2) of Decree 9 (Environmental Conservation) 1992 promulgated by the Government of Transkei. The fourth to seventh respondents were restrained from granting any rights in land which formed part of the territory that formerly constituted the Republic of Transkei.
Texto completo
Jud.Dec.Nat.pre.pdf
Disponible en
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 91