Animal Law Reform South Africa NPC and Others v Johannesburg City Parks and Zoo NPC (RF) and Others (32881/2022) [2025] ZAGPPHC 889 (5 September 2025)

Case Note

Animal Law Reform South Africa NPC & Others v Johannesburg City Parks and Zoo NPC (RF) & Others; In re: application by Kristen Stilt and Macarena Montes Franceschini to be admitted as amici curiae
Case No. 32881/2022, Gauteng Division, Pretoria
Neutral citation: Animal Law Reform South Africa NPC v Johannesburg City Parks and Zoo NPC (RF) and Others [2025] ZAGPPHC ___ (5 September 2025)
Date delivered: 5 September 2025

Reportability

This judgment is reportable because it clarifies the content, purpose and practical application of Rule 16A of the Uniform Rules of Court, particularly in matters implicating constitutional environmental rights. In three substantial respects the decision is of general public importance.

First, the court re-affirms that a constitutional issue can arise even where there is no frontal attack on the validity of legislation. By treating the alleged violation of section 24 of the Constitution, read with the State’s section 7(2) obligations, as a sufficient constitutional foothold, the judgment brings welcome nuance to earlier, more restrictive readings of Rule 16A.

Secondly, it underscores the growing relevance of comparative and international animal-law jurisprudence in South African courts. By admitting two foreign academics as amici, the court signalled that expertise drawn from other jurisdictions can meaningfully inform the domestic development of environmental and animal-welfare rights.

Finally, the judgment provides a practical road-map on late amicus applications, emphasising that the overarching yardstick remains the interests of justice and the absence of prejudice. These principles will guide future litigants and courts confronted with similar procedural objections.

Cases Cited

• AS v Minister of Health and Others 2024 JDR 2613 (WCC)
• Hoffmann v South African Airways 2001 (1) SA 1 (CC)
• Children’s Institute v Presiding Officer of the Children’s Court, District of Krugersdorp and Others 2013 (2) SA 620 (CC)
• Minister of Health and Others v Treatment Action Campaign (No 2) 2002 (5) SA 713 (CC)
• Phillips v South African Reserve Bank and Others 2013 (6) SA 450 (SCA)
• Maughan and Another v Zuma 2023 (5) SA 467 (KZP)

Legislation Cited

Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 – sections 7(2) and 24

Rules of Court Cited

Uniform Rules of Court, Rule 16A

HEADNOTE

Summary

The applicants, Professor Kristen Stilt and Dr Macarena Montes Franceschini, sought leave to intervene as amici curiae in ongoing constitutional proceedings that challenge the continued captivity of three elephants in the Johannesburg Zoo. The respondents opposed their admission, arguing that no true constitutional issue had been raised and that the amicus submissions would add nothing novel. Millar J held that the main application indeed implicated the constitutional environmental right in section 24 and that the proposed amici possessed specialised comparative expertise capable of assisting the court. Exercising the broad discretion conferred by Rule 16A, the court condoned the late filing of the amicus application and granted the applicants permission to file written and oral argument. No costs order was made.

Key Issues

Whether a constitutional issue, sufficient to trigger Rule 16A, can be established without a direct attack on legislation; whether the proposed amici would offer distinct, helpful submissions; and whether delay in bringing an amicus application should be condoned in the interests of justice.

Held

The court held that the pleaded violation of section 24 of the Constitution constitutes a constitutional matter, that the amici’s comparative analysis would materially assist the trial court, and that no prejudice arose from the delay. Consequently, admission was granted and late-filing condoned.

THE FACTS

Animal Law Reform South Africa NPC, the EMS Foundation and Chief Stephen Fritz seek orders declaring the confinement of three elephants—Lammie, Mopane and Ramadiba—unlawful and unconstitutional, together with directions for their release from the Johannesburg Zoo. Their founding papers raise reliance on section 24 of the Constitution, contending that continued captivity infringes both the animals’ welfare and broader ecological interests.

Professors Stilt and Franceschini, scholars affiliated to Harvard Law School’s Brooks McCormick Jr. Animal Law & Policy Program, became aware of the litigation through the Rule 16A notice posted by the main applicants. They approached all parties seeking consent to participate as friends of the court and, after the respondents refused, launched the present opposed application.

The amici applicants emphasised their prior involvement in international animal-law litigation, their ability to translate and contextualise non-English precedents, and their intention to confine submissions to questions of law—namely foreign and international jurisprudence on the captivity of elephants and related constitutional themes.

THE ISSUES

The court was required to decide, first, whether the procedural and substantive requirements of Rule 16A had been met, including (a) interest in the constitutional issue, (b) the added value of the proposed submissions, and (c) consent or, failing consent, leave of the court. Secondly, it had to evaluate whether the delay in bringing the application warranted condonation. Underpinning both questions was the respondents’ contention that no constitutional issue had been squarely raised because no statute was being impugned.

ANALYSIS

Millar J began by tracing the purpose of Rule 16A: to alert interested persons to constitutional litigation and afford them an opportunity to assist the court. The judge stressed that the “succinct description” requirement, elucidated in Phillips v South African Reserve Bank, is directed at potential amici, not the opposing parties.

Turning to the merits, the court rejected the respondents’ narrow reading of “constitutional issue”. It found that a challenge predicated on section 24, even absent a direct statutory assault, squarely raises constitutional considerations, echoing the flexible approach endorsed in Children’s Institute and Maughan v Zuma.

On the value added, the judgment accepted that expertise in foreign jurisprudence—especially non-English sources—could broaden the remedial horizons of the trial court. Citing Hoffmann and Treatment Action Campaign, the court reiterated that an amicus must introduce new perspectives rather than duplicate existing arguments, a threshold the applicants clearly met.

With regard to delay, the court was satisfied that the main proceedings were not yet ripe for hearing and that the respondents contemplated further affidavits. The absence of demonstrable prejudice, coupled with a satisfactory explanation, rendered condonation appropriate.

REMEDY

The court ordered: (i) the late filing of the amicus application is condoned; (ii) Professors Stilt and Franceschini are admitted as amici curiae in terms of Rule 16A; and (iii) they may file written submissions and present oral argument at the hearing of the main application. No costs order was made.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

The judgment confirms that section 24 environmental-rights litigation constitutes a constitutional matter even where no legislative provision is directly impugned. It affirms that the decisive test for admission under Rule 16A is whether the proposed amici will assist the court with cogent, non-duplicative submissions. The decision reiterates that courts retain a wide discretion to relax procedural time-limits where the interests of justice so demand and makes clear that comparative and international jurisprudence can be of material assistance in developing South African constitutional law on animal welfare and environmental protection.