Click here to read the full judgment on Saflii

1.         The Applicant (hereinafter referred to as “the Association”) approached this Court with an application for an order in the following terms:

1.1       That the decision of the Respondent (hereinafter referred to as “the Minister”) as per the directive issued in terms of Section 95(3)(h) of the National Water Act[1] (herein after referred to only as “the Water Act”) on 11 March 2023 (herein after referred to as “the Directive”) be reviewed and be set aside; and

1.2       That the Minister be ordered to pay the costs of the application on a scale as between Attorney and Client, alternatively on a scale as between party and party.

I will henceforth and for purposes hereof refer to the above application as “the Main Application”.

2.         The Main Application was set down for argument before myself and the learned Mamosebo J on Monday 11 September 2023 and at the commencement of the argument of the matter Me. Olivier, who appeared on behalf of the Minister, approached the Court with a substantive application on behalf of the Minister for (essentially) the postponement of the Main Application which application for postponement was filed earlier on Monday 11 September 2023 (herein after referred to simply as “the Postponement Application”).

The Minister also sought leave to file the remainder of the record as well as an Answering Affidavit in the Main Application.

3.         Mr. van Niekerk SC who appeared on behalf of the Association together with Mrs. Erasmus, indicated that, although the Association opposed the Postponement Application, the Association would not file an Answering Affidavit in the Postponement Application and that the Association will argue the matter on the Minister’s (the Applicant in the Postponement Application) papers.

4.         This Court was therefore tasked with not only determining the Main Application, but also with determining the Postponement Application.