SCA sets aside interdict against Kangra Coal’s water use licence
The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) recently delivered its judgment in Kangra Coal (Pty) Ltd v The Trustees of the Time Being of the Corneels Greyling Trust and Others (1052/2023) [2025] ZASCA 09, setting aside an interdict that had prevented Kangra Coal from using water under a granted water use licence.
Background
Kangra Coal, a mining company, was granted a water use licence despite objections from commercial farmers (the respondents). The respondents appealed the decision to the Water Tribunal, but Kangra continued using water under the licence while the appeal was pending. In response, the respondents successfully sought an interdict from the High Court, preventing Kangra from using the water until the appeal was resolved.
Kangra’s Appeal to the SCA
Kangra approached the SCA, arguing that:
The respondents lacked legal standing to seek the interdict as they had not established any harm in the event that the interdict was not granted.
The appeal against the water use licence was filed late and did not suspend the licence’s effect.
Granting the interdict would cause more harm to Kangra than the respondents.
The SCA’s Findings
In its ruling, the SCA reaffirmed the requirements for a final interdict and found that:
The respondents had not explicitly pleaded their legal standing or a clear right to seek the interdict.
No actual or potential harm had been demonstrated by the respondents as a result of Kangra’s water use.
The appeal against the water use licence was filed beyond the statutory timeframe, making it invalid.
Outcome
Based on these findings, the SCA set aside the High Court’s interdict and dismissed the respondents’ application with costs, effectively allowing Kangra to continue using water under its licence.
Key Takeaways
This judgment underscores the importance of:
Strict compliance with procedural deadlines in environmental and administrative law disputes.
Demonstrating a clear legal right and actual harm when seeking an interdict.
Understanding that an appeal does not automatically suspend the effect of a decision unless expressly provided for in law.
For businesses operating in regulated industries, particularly mining and water use, this case highlights the significance of legal certainty in administrative decisions and the potential consequences of procedural missteps in litigation.