Search

The article focuses on the potential implications of the liberalisation of the locus standi requirement in the Bill of Rights along with the extension of the circumstances on public environmental interests provided in the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) in South Africa. It cites two cases such as the Tergniet and Toekoms Action Group v. Outeniqua Kreosootpale (Pty) Ltd., as well as the McCarthy v. Constantia Property Owners' Association, which explain the provisions of the expansion of the locus standi. Moreover, it also provides recommendations on how to avoid possible procedural impediments to effective public interest environmental litigation.

The article discusses the procedure of admission as party to a case or amicus curiae. Under the Constitutional Court Rule 10(1) of South Africa, it is a court's discretion to admit an amicus curiae to any proceedings on the basis that such person has an interest in any matter before the court and that all other parties to the matter have consented. However, the Constitutional Court also pointed out that the application of the amicus be relevant to the issues before the court and consist of new contentions that do not merely repeat the arguments of other parties.

The article discusses how the parties often discuss terms of an agreement before formally putting it into writing and are also known to verbally agree to amendments to an agreement and disputes arise when such terms are not included in the written agreement in South Africa. It mentions Mike Ness Agencies CC t/a Promech Boreholes v Lourensford Fruit Company (Pty) Ltd in which the term was not included in the written Agreement between the two parties. It mentions oral portion of the agreement.