IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(TRANSKEI PROVINCIAL DIVISION)
CASE NO: 1672/95WILDLIFE SOCIETY OF SOUTH AFRICA AND OTHERSVERSUSMINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS AND TOURISM OF THE REPUBLIC OF
SOUTH AFRICA AND OTHERS
TRANSKEI SUPREME COURT1996 JUNE 21, 27
BEFORE: PICKERING J.
Environmental law-Environmental conservation-Application for mandamus compelling state to
comply with its obligations to protect environment imposed by statute- wildlife society having
locus standi to apply for such order by virtue of s 7 of constitution of the republic of South Africa
Act 200 of 1993.
Recusal of presiding Judge in civil trial-on grounds of Bias-Application for mandamus
compelling state to comply with statutory obligations to protect environment-some of applicants
members of wild Coast Cottage owners Association-presiding Judge occupier or owner of cottage
on Wild Coast-Judge not member of Association-Fact of occupation not giving rise to reasonable
application of bias-Judge not standing to gain from proceedings-Application refused.
Practice-Parties-Locus Standi-Where statute imposing obligation on state to protect Environment-
Semble: Body such as wildlife society should have locus standi at common law to apply for order
compelling state to comply with its obligations in terms of statute.
The applicants applied for an order compelling the first, second and third respondents to take
steps to enforce the provisions of s 39(2) of Decree 9 (Environment Conservation) of July 24
1992 (Tk). The first applicant was the wildlife society of southern Africa and the second applicant
its Conservation Director.
The third and fourth applicants were two lawful occupiers of cottages on the wild coast and
members of the wild coast cottage association. The first respondent was the Minister of
Environmental Affairs of South Africa, the second respondent the premier of the Eastern Cape
and the fourth to seventh respondents the chiefs of certain areas in the Eastern Cape.
The applicants contended that the fourth and seventh respondents had granted the rights of
occupation and had allocated sites with in the coastal conservation area to provide individuals, in
each case for a relatively small consideration. Shacks and dwellings had been constructed on
those sites, which resulted into environmental degradation, the roads, pathways and tracks had
been created through environmentally sensitive areas. It was conceded that considerable
irreversible environmental degradation of the Transkei wild coast with in the coastal conservation
zone had been and was occurring at the time of institution of the proceedings. The applicants
contended that despite their efforts at persuading the first to third respondents to comply with the
obligation to enforce compliance with the provisions of s 39 of the Decree, the respondents had