Click here to read the full judgment on Saflii

[1]  The applicant, eThekwini Municipality, which served as the first respondent in the main application, is seeking leave to appeal the whole judgment and order issued by the full court sitting as a court of first instance on 18 December 2025.[1] Leave is sought to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal on the grounds of both reasonable prospects of success and compelling reasons.

[2]  The applicant outlined the following nine grounds for leave to appeal as presented in its heads of argument and oral submissions to this court:

1.  The court did not conduct a reasonableness assessment when declaring that:

(a) eThekwini breached the notices and directives issued by the KwaZulu-Natal Department of Economic Development, Tourism, and Environmental Affairs (EDTEA);

(b) eThekwini's non-compliance with these notices is both unconstitutional and unlawful;

(c) eThekwini breached sections 28(1) and 31L (4) of the National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998 (NEMA), s 19(1) of the National Water Act 36 of 1998 (NWA), s 69 of the National Environmental Management: Integrated Coastal Management Act 24 of 2008 (NEMICA), s 16(1) of the National Environmental Management: Waste Act 59 of 2008 (NEMWA), and s 24 of the Constitution.

2.   The court failed to apply the Plascon-Evans principle when it dismissed eThekwini’s version, had it done so, it would have determined the inquiry on eThekwini’s version as its version was not fictitious, implausible or untenable.

Additionally, the court misdirected itself by using evidence from Action SA’s separate application to resolve factual disputes against eThekwini.

3.   The court incorrectly relied on evidence from the Action SA papers concerning the lack of a non-closure letter as proof of non-compliance with compliance notices.

4.  The court erred by concluding that eThekwini operated Wastewater Treatment Works (WWTW) without a license in violation of section 69 of NEMICA.

5.  The finding in paragraph 67 of the judgment that eThekwini breached sections 16(c) and (d) of NEMWA—read with paragraph 3.4 of the order regarding a breach of section 16(1) of NEMWA resulted in inconsistencies between the reasoning and order concerning which provision was violated.

6.  The constitutional determination that eThekwini’s failure to comply with notices is unconstitutional and unlawful does not stand alone but is linked to statutory conclusions.

7.  In paragraph 68, the court mistakenly found that it was unlawful for eThekwini to reopen beaches without EDTEA approval, even though no order was made regarding this issue.

8.  The court made an error in ordering that eThekwini publish E. coli readings on a weekly basis.

9. Finally, the court incorrectly imposed a costs order against eThekwini Municipality.