MINING COMPANY GRANTED REPRIEVE IN ONGOING LEGAL BATTLE
APPEAL COURT LIFTS INTERDICT ON COAL MINING COMPANY
Kangra Coal (Pty) Ltd v The Trustees of the Time Being of the
Corneels Greyling Trust and Others (1052/2023) [2025]
ZASCA 09 (06 February 2025)
A few years ago, I wrote an article on this ongoing legal saga, which at that time, played itself out at the Johannesburg High Court.
Years later, the matter came before the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) after KANGRA COAL appealed against the decision of the Johannesburg High Court.
Briefly, Kangra applied for and was granted a Water Use Licence (WUL). The First Respondent, the CORNEELS GREYLINGS TRUST, appealed to the Water Tribunal.
Despite the appeal, Kangra continued with its water uses and mining activities. The Trust thereafter approached the High Court for an interdict.
Kangra was interdicted from conducting any mining operations, pending the determination of the appeal before the Tribunal.
ISSUES BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL
The core issue for determination by the SCA was whether the Trust had legal standing to approach the High Court for an interdict against Kangra; and whether they satisfied all the requirements of an interdict.
The Trust alleged that Kangra’s mining operations may cause dewatering of the shallow perched aquifer, which in turn will affect the flow of water in the springs.
Kangra’s contention was that the Trust did not allege any actual harm or apprehension of harm they have suffered.
The Court held that the Trust failed to show any harm or potential harm to themselves or others in the surrounding area or even the environment, and thus failed to prove the second requirement of an interdict; that of harm or apprehension of potential harm.
On this leg alone, the Court held that Kangra’s appeal ought to succeed.
This case had little to do with interpreting the National Water Act nor the National Environmental Management Act, but rested on the requirements for a Final Interdict (as opposed to an interim interdict).
The court’s decision turned on the application of the Plascon Evans Rule to the factual disputes between Kangra and the Trust. Essentially this rule holds that a final interdict should only be granted where the facts stated by the Respondent (Kangra) together with the admitted facts in the Applicant’s affidavit, justify such an order.
It emerged that in the Trust’s founding papers, its report on environmental harm did not say anything significantly different from what Kangra submitted and what the Chief Director considered with other important information pertaining to granting of a WUL.
Kangra’s version was that the impacts were minimal and could be mitigated, and its report indicated how mitigation will be undertaken and thereafter the area rehabilitated.
On the Plascon Evans Principle, Kangra’s version was accepted as correct, which disposed of the Trust’s application for an interdict.
