Environmental Case Law Index

The Environmental Case Law Index is a collection of judgments from 10 African countries on topics relating to environmental law, both substantive and procedural. The collection focuses on cases where an environmental interest interacts with governmental or private interests.

Get started on finding judgments that are relevant to you by browsing the topic list on the left of the screen. Click the arrows next to the topic names to reveal a detailed list of sub-topics. Most judgments are accompanied by a short summary written by subject-area expert postgraduate students from the University of Cape Town.

Read also JIFA's Environmental Country Reports for SADC

No topics currently selected - please choose one from the list on the left.

Displaying 1 - 2 of 2

Ntsolo v Moahloli (CIV/A/18/86) [1987] LSCA 133 (31 August 1987);

EL Index Interim Interdict Injuctions and interdicts Civil Remedies Supervisory Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Civil Procedure Injunction Injuctions and interdicts Civil Remedies African customary law and rights of indigenous peoples Human and environmental rights Environmental law Right to Defend Constitutional Law

In this case, the respondent claimed two houses, one yard, three fields, and three forests as his property; and alleged that the appellant was using the property unlawfully. A first judgement was rendered in favour of the respondent. The appellant then appealed the judgement. After the appeal was dismissed, the appellant continued to be adamant against the court's decision and the respondent, therefore, applied for interdict orders seeking to restrain the appellant from entering the disputed property. The interdict was granted and was then appealed by the appellant. This case concerned the appeal against the judgment of the resident magistrate confirming the interdict granted against the appellant.

The issues for determination were (1) whether the application for an interdict was the proper remedy in the circumstance and (2) whether the summons was properly served to the defendant.

The High Court held that for it to issue an interdict it must be satisfied that (1) a clear right existed; (2) an injury was actually committed or reasonably apprehended; (3) no other satisfactory remedy was available to the applicant. The High Court held that damages to the property involved would be irreversible and that the matter satisfied the requirements for an interdict. 

The High Court found that the appellant chose to ignore the summons. Moreover, even if he was not duly served with the summons, he was supposed to apply the default judgement to be set aside and not to ignore it.

The appeal was dismissed with cost.
Relevance ranking: 16.186623

Ntsolo v Moahloli (CIV/A/18/86) (CIV/A/18/86) [1987] LSHC 92 (31 August 1987);

EL Index Injunction Injuctions and interdicts Civil Remedies Land use Human exploitation of the environment Environmental law Attribution of Costs Costs Civil Remedies

This appeal arose from a rule nisi application that required the appellant to justify why an interdict should not be issued against him for the unlawful use of the respondent’s property.

The respondent instituted interdict proceedings when the appellant continued to use the disputed property after a default judgment that reinstated a previous judgment in his favor.

The court noted that interdict applications require proof of a clear right, an injury and the absence of any other satisfactory remedy.

The appellant submitted that the respondent had alternative remedies in contempt proceedings and a writ of execution. The court noted that the real issue was whether the alternative remedies would afford adequate protection from the continuing mischief. The court held that contempt proceedings are entirely unsatisfactory, where the injury has already started and is continuing. It was also held that a writ of execution was unsatisfactory for immovable property such as land.

The appellant claimed that service by postal service did not constitute proper service of summons as per rule 44 of Central and Local Courts (Practice and Procedure) Rules; and that this affected the validity of the default judgment. However, the court noted that the service was properly effected. It was also held that the validity of a default judgment was not affected by service of summons so, it was valid unless set aside lawfully.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed with costs.
Relevance ranking: 16.186623