Minister of Environmental Affairs v The Trustees for the time being of Groundwork Trust and Others

In 2007 the Minister declared a large industrial area spanning parts of Gauteng and Mpumalanga as the Highveld Priority Area due to severe air pollution. In 2012 the Minister published the Highveld Priority Area Air Quality Management Plan aimed at achieving compliance with national ambient air quality standards by 2020, but no regulations were promulgated to implement or enforce the plan. Despite internal departmental studies confirming that air pollution in the area exceeded standards and caused serious adverse health effects, including premature deaths, the Minister failed for over a decade to prescribe regulations under s 20 of the National Environmental Management: Air Quality Act 39 of 2004. Environmental justice organisations (GroundWork and Vukani Environmental Justice Alliance) approached the Gauteng High Court seeking declaratory and mandatory relief, alleging breaches of s 24(a) of the Constitution and statutory duties under the Air Quality Act. The High Court granted the relief. The Minister appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal. By the time of the appeal hearing, the regulations had been published, raising the issue of mootness.

The appeal was dismissed with costs, save to a limited extent. The High Court’s order was varied to declare that poor air quality in the Highveld Priority Area breaches s 24(a) of the Constitution; that the Minister has a legal duty under s 20 of the Air Quality Act to prescribe regulations to implement and enforce the Highveld Priority Area Air Quality Management Plan; that the Minister unreasonably delayed in doing so; and directing the Minister, within 12 months, to prepare, initiate and prescribe such regulations.

This judgment is a leading authority on the enforceability of environmental rights and statutory duties in South African law. It confirms that environmental management statutes must be interpreted purposively and consistently with the Constitution, and that ministerial regulation-making powers may amount to enforceable duties where necessary to realise constitutional rights. The case strengthens environmental justice jurisprudence by affirming judicial oversight over executive inaction in the face of systemic environmental harm.