satisfied before setting aside such a proceeding that it is as a matter of certainty obviously
unsustainable. (At 195C-D).
It appears from the minutes of the Task Group on 14 August 1995 that the recommendation for
the establishment thereof was contained in a letter from first respondent to third respondent. In
these circumstances it is hardly surprising that applicants knew nothing thereof until after its
formation. What is relevant however is that fourth applicant was invited to and did attend the
meeting of the task group as a representative of the Cottage Owners Association of which third
applicant is a member and that the applicants were therefore aware of the existence of the task
group prior to the institution of these proceedings. Applicants aver that the task group’s role was
advisory only and that at no time did the group even suggest that decisive action be taken against
illegal land practice users.
They aver further that the fact that the Task Group met only once a month is indicative of the
ineffective and totally inappropriate manner in which the urgent problem was being addressed. In
my view far from these proceedings being an abuse of the process of the court, a perusal of the
minutes of the meeting of the Task Group on 14 th August 1995 bears out applicants’ averments. It
appears therefrom that the main function of the Task Group was ‘to advice the various ministers
on the appropriate steps to be taken regarding problems in the coastal areas’. (AT para 9.3). That
the main function was indeed advisory is borne out by the minutes themselves. At that meeting
fourth applicant specifically stated that, whilst there was a need to rationalize legislation, it was
essential that urgent action to be taken against offenders immediately so as to prevent the
proliferation of illegal cottages estimated as comprising up to 300 units. He pointed out that to
wait until the legislation had been rationalized would be disastrous as by then valuable coastal
resources would have been irreparably damaged. His speech elicited an expression of
appreciation from the chairman. A list of actions’ was determined at the conclusion of the
meeting in which every action to be taken was accorded a priority ranging from 1 to 5 as well as
medium term. Not surprisingly the issue of a press release informing the public of the
establishment of the Task Group and of its activities was accorded priority ‘number one’. Despite
fourth applicant’s impassioned plea to take action and not to wait for the rationalization of
legislation, such rationalization was accorded priority ‘number two’. Only then was priority
‘number three’ referred to in the following somewhat startling terms:
Determine political support from proposed action against owners of cottages erected illegally.’ In
this regard the action to be taken was stated to be:
Present proposed “test case” legal action against the owners of 20-sea side residential sites on
state land close to the high water mark near Manteku store in the Mtambelala Administrative
Area, Lusikisiki district to the Minister of Land Affairs; Eastern Cape Agriculture and
Conservation and Environmental Affairs and Tourism to determine support for initiative.
What exactly constituted ‘political support’ and why such ‘political support’ had to be determined
before action could be taken to stop the blatantly illegal degradation of the coastal conservation
zone of the wide coast was not explained, nor has it since been explained by Mr. Botha who
participated in the meeting of the task group. It is difficult to understand why in the face of
overwhelming evidence of illegal land practice uses, it was considered necessary to determine
‘political support’ for action to be taken to put a stop there to and why there should have been a
remarkable and disturbing reluctance immediately to invoke the provisions of s 39 of the Decree.
It is telling that no where in his affidavit does Mr. Botha state why it was necessary to adopt such
a ‘kidglove’ approach nor does he state that first respondent was logistically unable to enforce the
provisions of S. 39.