City of Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality v New Star Technology CC and Another

The applicant, City of Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality, sought a final interdict against the respondents for conduct contravening various environmental legislation. The first respondent, New Star Technology CC, operated a plastic recycling business at 4 Robex Road, Activia, Germiston since 2009. The second respondent was a member of the close corporation. Following a site inspection on 26 August 2020, an Environmental Compliance Management Officer (ECMO) found that the first respondent was conducting thermal treatment of general hazardous waste without an atmospheric emission license (AEL) as required by the Air Quality Act, and was recycling waste without a waste management license (WML) as required by the Waste Act. The respondent had applied for rectification under section 24G of NEMA, but the application was suspended pending criminal proceedings. Despite receiving a compliance notice on 13 October 2020 requiring cessation of activities within 24 hours, the respondents continued operations. A further inspection on 16 February 2021 confirmed ongoing non-compliance. The respondents admitted commencing operations without authorization but contended they were contributing to environmental clean-up by recycling plastic waste.

• Whether the applicant had standing (locus standi) to apply for an interdict under section 32 of NEMA
• Whether the relevant parties were properly joined to the proceedings
• Whether it was competent to grant a final interdict
• Whether the requirements for a final interdict were satisfied: (i) a clear right, (ii) injury actually committed or reasonably apprehended, and (iii) absence of satisfactory alternative remedy
• Whether criminal prosecution and fines constituted adequate alternative remedies to an interdict

1. The respondents were interdicted and restrained from conducting section 21 listed activities without an atmospheric emission license in contravention of the Air Quality Act 39 of 2004. 2. The respondents were interdicted from conducting section 19, Category A (Activity 3) listed activities without a waste management license in contravention of the Waste Act 59 of 2008. 3. The respondents were interdicted from conducting section 19 Category C (Activity 5) waste management activity in contravention of national norms and standards for storage of waste (Government Notice 926 of 29 November 2013). 4. The respondents were interdicted from operating a waste facility in contravention of national norms and standards for sorting, shredding, grinding, crushing, screening or baling of general waste (Government Notice 1093 of 11 October 2017). 5. In the event of non-compliance, the applicant was authorized with assistance of the sheriff, SAPS, Metro Police and/or private security to demolish and remove all items and illegal structures used to conduct listed activities without environmental authorization. 6. The respondents were ordered to pay costs jointly and severally on an attorney and client scale.

The binding legal principles established are: (1) Municipalities have standing under section 32 of NEMA to pursue interdictory relief in their own interest and in the public interest to protect the environment, consistent with their constitutional obligations under sections 24 and 152(1)(d) of the Constitution. (2) Where an entity has demonstrated a clear proclivity to disregard environmental legislation by continuing unauthorized activities despite compliance notices and ongoing criminal proceedings, an interdict is an appropriate and necessary remedy. (3) Criminal prosecution and monetary fines do not constitute adequate alternative remedies where such measures have proven ineffective as deterrents and the respondent continues to derive financial benefit from illegal operations causing ongoing environmental harm. (4) The three requirements for a final interdict apply in environmental matters: a clear right (derived from constitutional and statutory environmental protection obligations), injury actually committed or reasonably apprehended (unauthorized activities causing pollution and environmental degradation), and absence of satisfactory alternative remedy. (5) Operations conducted under section 24G applications for rectification of unauthorized activities must cease until proper environmental authorization is obtained; the pendency of a rectification application does not authorize continued unlawful activity.

The court made several non-binding observations: (1) The appointment of Environmental Management Inspectors (EMIs) is an innovation by the MEC's Office to ensure steady realization of environmental preservation for present and future generations. (2) The respondents' claim that their recycling activities contribute to environmental clean-up by removing plastic waste ignores the fact that unauthorized thermal treatment of plastic contravenes environmental legislation and causes pollution through emissions and odours. (3) Economic considerations such as employment creation and contribution to cleaning the environment cannot justify operations in contravention of environmental legislation. (4) Where criminal proceedings are drawn out and may take years to finalize, allowing continued operations would result in ongoing environmental degradation, making interdictory relief more appropriate. (5) The court noted with apparent approval that a punitive costs order on an attorney and client scale was appropriate to demonstrate judicial disapproval of the respondents' conduct in pursuing business operations in deliberate contravention of law and in disregard of environmental impact.

This case is significant for South African environmental law as it demonstrates the enforcement mechanisms available to municipalities to protect the environment under NEMA and related environmental legislation. It confirms the generous approach to standing in environmental matters under section 32 of NEMA read with section 38 of the Constitution, allowing municipalities to pursue interdicts in the public interest and to protect the environment. The judgment emphasizes that where criminal proceedings and fines prove ineffective as deterrents against continued environmental violations, interdictory relief is appropriate and necessary. It reinforces the principle that economic considerations (employment, business operations) and purported environmental benefits (recycling) cannot justify continued unlawful operations in contravention of environmental legislation. The case also clarifies that section 24G of NEMA (rectification of unlawful activities) does not permit continued unauthorized operations pending determination of applications. The punitive costs order on an attorney and client scale signals judicial censure for persistent environmental violations.