Verstappen v Port Edward Town Board
This article may be too technical for most readers to understand.(February 2021) |
Verstappen v Port Edward Town Board | |
---|---|
Court | Local authority , Interdict, Interim interdict, Balance of convenience |
Verstappen v Port Edward Town Board and Others[1][2] is an important case in South African environmental law, heard on September 29, 1993.
It was an application for an
Finding of the court
The court found that the requirement, enacted in section 20(1) of the Environment Conservation Act,
The court accordingly held that the Minister's failure to promulgate the regulations foreshadowed in section 20(2) of the Act did not render lawful the conduct of the first respondent, a local authority, in operating the
It was clear to the court, from the language of the Environment Conservation Act, that the legislature intended the provisions of the Act to operate in the interests of the public at large. That being the case, an applicant seeking an interdict against the unlawful operation of a waste disposal site without a permit is required to show that the contravention of the Act by the respondent has caused or was likely to cause him some special damage.[7] The court held on the facts that the applicant had not shown that she had suffered any special damage at all.[8]
The applicant also sought to establish her locus standi in judicio to apply for an interdict restraining the first respondent local authority from committing the illegality of operating the waste disposal site without the aforementioned permit on the basis that she was a ratepayer of the first respondent, and that in several reported cases the courts had afforded
The manner in which the grant or refusal of an interim interdict would affect the immediate parties to the
See also
References
Case law
- Verstappen v Port Edward Town Board and Others 1994 (3) SA 569 (D).
Statutes
- Environment Conservation Act 73 of 1989.