my membership of the Cottage Owners Association could not in any way in the circumstances of
this case give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias on my part by first respondent. Compare
Bromley London Borough Council v Greater London Council and Another [1982] 1 ALLER 129
(CA) at 131j-132a.
Accordingly the application falls to be dismissed.
Locus Standi.
The first issue raised and one, which occupied not inconsiderable part of applicant’s heads of
argument, concerned the question of Locus Standi. Despite the earlier attitude of first respondent
as evinced in Mr. Botha’s affidavit Mr. Moerane in his heads of argument conceded that
applicants had locus Standi. As I understand it this concession was based on the provisions of s
7(4) (b), read with s 29 of the constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act 200 of 1993. See
Van Huysteen and others vs. Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism and others 1996
(1) SA 283 (c).
I may mention that in my opinion there is also much to be said for the view that in circumstances
where the Locus Standi afforded persons by s 7 of the constitution is not applicable and where a
statute imposes an obligation upon the state to take certain measures in order to protect the
environment in the interests of the public then a body such as the first applicant with its main
object being to protect the environment in the interests of the public then a body such as the first
applicant with its main object being to promote environmental conservation in South Africa
should have Locus Standi at common law to apply for an order compelling the state to comply
with its obligations in terms of such statute.
In a far-sighted article, ‘The Ecological Norm in Law or the Jurisprudence of the right against
pollution’ (1975) 92 SALJ 78 the late professor Barend Van Niekerk stated that the knowledge
had then about the nature of environmental pollution and its encroaching dangers to all members
of society called urgently for ‘a critical re-evaluation of how the existing legal rules concerning
Locus Standi should be adapted in order to cope more adequately with the interests of society in
general and each member of society in particular’.
(AT 88) He was of the opinion that the most obvious solution to the problem of Locus Standi was
‘to regard the environment as being peculiarly of interest to any member of society’ and he
continued by saying that because the effect of environmental blight will not spare any member of
society in the final analysis it did not seem misplaced.
‘in terms of existing legal principles to give every member of society the right to protect what
amounts to his own interest. An adoption of this line of reasoning will not... erode the basic
principle of our law on which Locus Standi to sue is based namely ‘that no man can sue in respect
of a wrongful act, unless it constitutes the breach of a duty owed to him by the wrong-doer, or
unless it causes him some damage in law”.
I am well aware that the English law relating to Locus Standi has developed very differently to
the South African law in this regard. Nevertheless the English cases are instructive and it is
interesting to note that the requirement in English of law of ‘sufficient interest’ has been
interpreted as being merely a means of protection against ‘busy-bodies’, cranks and other
mischief-makers. R v Inland Revenue Commissioners: Ex parte National Federation of self
employed and small business Ltd. [1982] AC617 at 653 G H. in the same case at 664C Lord
Diplock stated that there would be ‘a grave lacuna in our system of law if a pressure group ...or
even a single public spirited tax payer were prevented by outdated technical rules of Locus Standi