Gannet Works (Pty) Ltd and Others v Middleton Sue NO and Another

The appellants were business entities that manufacture, import, market and sell angling equipment, including bait-carrying drones and remote-controlled bait-carrying devices. On 24 February 2022, the Deputy Director-General for Fisheries Management (DDG) published a notice advising the public that the use of motorised devices such as bait-carrying drones, bait-carrying remote-controlled boats and other remotely operated vehicles, as well as motorised electric reels, are prohibited for angling. Following this notice, the appellants experienced a rapid decline in demand for their products, with order cancellations and demands for reimbursement from clients. The appellants brought an application in the Gauteng Division High Court seeking a declaratory order that the use of drones and remote-controlled devices is not prohibited under the Marine Living Resources Act 18 of 1998 and its regulations, and that the DDG should withdraw the public notice. The high court dismissed the application and the matter was appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal with leave.

• Whether the use of remote-controlled motorised equipment such as drones for purposes of recreational angling is authorised by the Marine Living Resources Act 18 of 1998 and its regulations
• Whether the notice issued by the DDG was unlawful and should be set aside
• The proper interpretation of 'angling' as defined in the regulations, particularly the meaning of 'manually operating' a rod, reel and line
• Whether the definition of 'angling' in the regulations implicitly excludes the use of remote-controlled motorized equipment
• Whether a permit holder for recreational angling is at liberty to use any fishing method not specifically prohibited, or only the method prescribed in the regulations

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The binding legal principle established is that 'angling' as defined in the regulations to the Marine Living Resources Act 18 of 1998 means 'recreational fishing by manually operating a rod, reel and line', and this definition implicitly excludes the use of remote-controlled motorized equipment such as drones and remote-controlled boats. Once a permit for recreational angling is issued under section 13 of the Act, the permit holder is authorized to use only the method prescribed in the regulations for angling, namely manually operating a rod, reel and line. The permit holder is not at liberty to use any method that is not specifically prohibited; rather, they may only use the method that is specifically authorized for the type of fishing endorsed on their permit. To use any other method would be unlawful. The definition of 'this Act' in section 1 includes any regulation or notice made under the Act, so definitions in the regulations are deemed to be included in the Act itself.

The Court observed that fisheries management is a policy-laden and polycentric area that entails a degree of specialist knowledge and expertise that very few judges may be expected to possess. The Court noted that consideration of judicial deference leans towards a purposive interpretation of the word 'angling' in the regulations. The Court also made observations about the constitutional framework, noting that section 24(b) of the Constitution imposes legal obligations on the Minister to protect the environment for present and future generations through reasonable legislative measures that prevent ecological degradation, promote conservation, and secure ecologically sustainable development. The Court referenced the objectives and principles set out in section 2 of the Marine Living Resources Act, including the need to achieve optimum utilization and ecologically sustainable development of marine living resources, conserve resources for present and future generations, apply precautionary approaches, protect ecosystems, preserve marine biodiversity, and restructure the fishing industry to address historical imbalances.

This case is significant for South African environmental and fisheries management law as it clarifies the scope of permitted methods for recreational angling under the Marine Living Resources Act 18 of 1998. The judgment establishes that the definition of 'angling' in the regulations, which requires 'manually operating' fishing equipment, implicitly excludes the use of modern remote-controlled and motorized devices such as drones and remote-controlled boats. The case demonstrates the courts' application of purposive statutory interpretation in the context of environmental legislation, taking into account constitutional obligations to protect the environment and promote conservation. It confirms that fishing permits not only authorize a type of fishing activity but also prescribe the specific methods that may lawfully be used. The judgment reinforces the principle of judicial deference to specialized administrative determinations in policy-laden areas requiring specialist knowledge and expertise. The case has practical implications for the fishing equipment industry and recreational anglers, making clear that technological innovations in fishing methods must align with the prescribed definitions and methods in the legislation and regulations.