Minister of Environmental Affairs v Trustees for the time being of the Groundwork Trust and Another [2023] ZAGPPHC 213; 39724/2019 (20 March 2023)

begin wrapper begin container begin header begin slogan-floater end slogan-floater - About SAFLII About SAFLII - Databases Databases - Search Search - Terms of Use Terms of Use - RSS Feeds RSS Feeds end header begin main begin center # South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria You are here: SAFLII >> Databases >> South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria >> 2023 >> [2023] ZAGPPHC 213 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## Minister of Environmental Affairs v Trustees for the time being of the Groundwork Trust and Another [2023] ZAGPPHC 213; 39724/2019 (20 March 2023) Minister of Environmental Affairs v Trustees for the time being of the Groundwork Trust and Another [2023] ZAGPPHC 213; 39724/2019 (20 March 2023) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPPHC/Data/2023_213.html sino date 20 March 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA Case No: 39724/2019 NOT REPORTABLE NOT OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES REVISED In the matter between: THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS Applicant and ## THE TRUSTEES FOR THE TIME BEING OF THE GROUNDWORK TRUST THE TRUSTEES FOR THE TIME BEING OF THE GROUNDWORK TRUST First Respondent ## VUKANI ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ALLIANCE MOVEMENT IN ACTION VUKANI ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ALLIANCE MOVEMENT IN ACTION Second Respondent This judgment is issued by the Judge whose name is reflected herein and is submitted electronically to the parties/their legal representatives by email. The judgment is further uploaded to the electronic file of this matter on CaseLines by the Judge or her Secretary. The date of this judgment is deemed to be 20 March 2023. JUDGMENT COLLIS J 1.This is an application for leave to appeal against the judgment and order made on 18 March 2022. 2. The application is premised on the grounds as listed in the Application for Leave to Appeal dated 08 April 2022. The said application albeit that same was filed last year already, was only brought to the attention of the Court towards the end of the year. This is regrettable and points to challenges experienced within the administration. 3. In anticipation of the hearing of the application for leave to appeal, the parties were requested to file short heads of argument. They both acceded to this request so directed by the Court. LEGAL PRINCIPLES 4. Section 17 of the Superior Court’s Act provides as follows: [1] “ (1) Leave to appeal may only be given where the judge or judges concerned are of the opinion that- (a) (i) the appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success; or (ii) there is some other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard, including conflicting judgments on the matter under consideration; (b) the decision sought to appeal does not fall within the ambit of section 16(2)(a); and (c) where the decision sought to be appealed does not dispose of all the issues in the case, the appeal would lead to a just and prompt resolution of the real issues between the parties.” 5. In casu the applicant relies on both grounds of appeal mentioned in section 17(1)(a) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013 , namely, that the appeal would have reasonable prospects of success and that there are compelling reasons justifying the appeal. 6. The crisp issue on appeal is a question of law, namely, the proper interpretation   of section 20 of the National Environmental Management: Air Quality Act 39 of 2004 (" the AQA "), specifically whether the regulation-making power in section 20 of the AQA vested the Applicant with a discretion to prescribe regulations or imposed a duty on her to do so. 7. The clarification of this interpretation is further of considerable wider importance as there are several statutes within the suit of environmental legislation which contain regulation-making powers similar to those contained in section 20 of the AQA, and many other statutes to similar effect. 8. The First and Second Respondents agreed with the Applicant that, subject to the requisite leave being given by this Court, that leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal should be granted. 9. As to the test to be applied by a court in considering an application for leave to appeal, Bertelsmann J in The Mont Chevaux Trust v Tina Goosen & 18 Others 2014 JDR 2325 (LCC) at para 6 stated the following: ‘ It is clear that the threshold for granting leave to appeal against a judgment of a High Court has been raised in the new Act. The former test whether leave to appeal should be granted was a reasonable prospect that another court might come to a different conclusion, see Van Heerden v Cronwright & Others 1985 (2) SA 342 (T) at 343H. The use of the word “would” in the new statute indicates a measure of certainty that another court will differ from the court whose judgment is sought to be appealed against.’ 10. ‘In order to succeed, therefore, the appellant must convince this Court on proper grounds that he has prospects of success on appeal and that those prospects are not remote, but have a realistic chance of succeeding. More is required to be established than that there is a mere possibility of success, that the case is arguable on appeal or that the case cannot be categorized as hopeless. There must, in other words, be a sound, rational basis for the conclusion that there are prospects of success on appeal.’ [2] # # 11. In Fair-Trade Independent Tobacco Association v President of the Republic of South Africa and Another[3]the Full Court of this Division observed that: 11. In Fair-Trade Independent Tobacco Association v President of the Republic of South Africa and Another [3] the Full Court of this Division observed that: “ As such, in considering the application for leave to appeal it is crucial for this Court to remain cognizant of the higher threshold that needs to be met before leave to appeal may be granted.  There must exist more than just a mere possibility that another court, the SCA in this instance, will, not might, find differently on both facts and law.  It is against this background that we consider the most pivotal grounds of appeal.” 12. Having read the papers and having carefully heard counsel I come to the conclusion that there is no reasonable prospect that another court would come to a different conclusion on the order of the court in terms of section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013 . # # 13. There however exists compelling reasons justifying why the appeal should be heard in terms of section 17(1)(a)(ii) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013. This is due to the novelty and importance of the constitutional issues raised in this matter and the broader public interest. 13. There however exists compelling reasons justifying why the appeal should be heard in terms of section 17(1)(a)(ii) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013. This is due to the novelty and importance of the constitutional issues raised in this matter and the broader public interest. ORDER: 14. Consequently, the following order is made: 14.1. Leave to appeal is granted to the Supreme Court of Appeal in terms of section 17(6) of the Superior Courts Act. 14.2. The leave granted is confined to paragraphs 241.2 to 241.5 of the order of the court a quo. 14.3. The costs of the application for leave to appeal to be costs in the appeal. COLLIS J JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT GAUTENG DIVISION PRETORIA APPEARANCES Counsel for Applicant : Adv. J RUST SC Instructed By : OFFICE OF THE STATE ATTORNEYS PRETORIA Counsel Respondents : Adv. S. BUDLENDER SC, Adv C. McCONNACHIE Adv. C TABATA Instructed by : CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RIGHTSCAPE TOWN Date of hearing: 13 March 2023 Date of Judgment: 20 March 2023 [1] Act 10 of 2013 [2] S v Smith 2012 (1) SACR 567 (SCA) at para 7. [3] Case no: 21688/2020 [2020] ZAGPPHC 311 (24 July 2020) at [6]. sino noindex make_database footer start