Eye of Africa v Nicola Shear

The court dismissed with costs Gauteng developer Eye of Africa’s appeal against the South Gauteng High Court’s ruling that its application to change aspects of an environmental authorisation to allow it to use borehole water to irrigate a golf course, instead of grey water as approved, was not procedurally correct and was "of no force or effect" Eye of Africa made the application after realising the estate’s development had slowed so much it did not have sufficient grey water to irrigate its 18-hole championship golf course, as had been agreed in April 2005. Eye of Africa applied to a Gauteng MEC (unnamed in the appeal court papers) to be able to use borehole water for 10 years, until the development had gained enough waste water. The developer also applied for a temporary abstraction licence from the then Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, and received feedback from the department, but not the MEC. The department conditionally granted the application. What the developer did not foresee was an objection from a neighbour. Because she believed a new borehole … would compromise water supply, she appealed against the water use licence via the Water Tribunal. When this proved unsuccessful, she brought an application for a review of the MEC’s decision under the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act. The appeal court found several reasons that the letter to the department was invalid. Because the letter was relied on to prove an amendment was made, this invalidated the amendment too.