IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION , PRETORIA
CASE NO. A132/2024
DELETE WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO O THER JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED:
(4) Date : 12 February 2026
Signatu re:
In the matter between:
KANG RA COAL (PTY) LTD
and
THE TRUSTEES FOR THE TIME BEING
OF THE CORNEELS GREYLING TRUST
MOOIBANK BOERDERY (PTY) LTD
(FORMERLY UKUCHUMA FARMING (PTY) LTD
CHIEF DIRECTOR: WATER USE LICENSING MANAGEMENT ,
DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND SANITATION
JUDGMENT
Appellant
1st Respondent
2nd Respondent
3rd Respondent
2
NYATHI J
A. INTRODUCTION
[1]. This is an appeal in terms of section 149(1) of the National Water Act 36 of 1998
(“the Act”) against the whole of the decision of the Water Tribunal delivered on
19 April 2024.
[2]. The Tribunal held that the respondents’ appeal against the grant of a Water Use
Licence (“WUL”) to the appellant was valid, timeously lodged, and that
condonation would in any event have been granted.
[3]. The appeal was heard on 29 April 2025. No party opposed the appeal.
[4]. Despite the lack of opposition, this Court remains obliged to determine the matter
on the merits.
B. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
[5]. The Chief Director granted a WUL to the appellant on 25 October 2021 for the
Balgrathen A adit.
[6]. The respondents were informed of the decision on the WUL on 3 December 2021.
They subsequently requested reasons on 14 December 2021, 19 January 2022,
and 13 April 2022, but no reasons were furnished until 17 November 2022.
[7]. The respondents purported to lodge an appeal before the Tribunal on 14 July
2022, which was between seven and eight months after they had knowledge of
the decision, but several months before receiving reasons.
[8]. On 22 September 2022 the Tribunal issued a directive in amongst others the
following terms:
3
“11. There is also [sic] further point raised by the parties in the correspondence which
relates to the Appellant having launched the appeal out of time and without having
applied for condonation. This aspect will be dealt with in the first the [sic] which
this matter is to be heard. To the extent that the Appellant wishes to apply for
condonation they must do so by no later than 5 October 2023.”
[9]. Consequently, on 5 October 2023, the First and Second Respondents delivered
an application for condonation purportedly in terms of item 5(2) of Part 2 of
Schedule 6 of the Act and regulation 4(4) of the Tribunal Rules seeking the
following relief:
“68.1 The appeal was timeously lodged in compliance with section 148(3)(c) of
the [National Water Act] and paragraph 4(1)(c) of the Tribunal Rules; and
68.2 In the event that the Water Tribunal is of the view that the [Water Use
licence] Appeal was out of time, that condonation be granted for the delay
in terms of item 5(2) of part 2 of Schedule 6 of the [National Water Act]
and Regulation 4(4) of the Tribunal Rules”
[10]. The Appellant opposed the application.
[11]. The Tribunal found that the First and Second Respondents had made out a case
for condonation for the late lodging of the appeal and made the following decision:
“(a) …a legally compliant appeal [had been] lodged.
(b) the trigger event for the commencement of the 30 day period within which
the appeal ought to have been lodged is the provision of the reasons by the
first respondent.
(c) the appeal referred to in paragraph (a) was not lodged out of time and was
in fact lodged four months before the date on which it ought to have been
lodged.
4
(d) that to the extent that condonation was required, the Tribunal would have
granted it.”
[12]. The Tribunal found that the appeal was in fact lodged “before time,” and that the
trigger date for the 30-day appeal period was the provision of written reasons on
17 November 2022.
C. THE ISSUE
[13]. The central question is whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain an
appeal lodged many months after the respondents became aware of the WUL,
and if it could lawfully condone the late filing of the appeal.
[14]. Related to this is whether the Tribunal’s reasoning that the appeal was “filed
before time” is legally sustainable.
D. LEGAL FRAMEWORK
1. Appeal time periods: s 148(3)
[15]. Section 148(3) requires an appeal to be commenced within 30 days after:
(a) publication of the decision in the Gazette ;
(b) notice of the decision is sent to the appellant or
(c) the giving of reasons for the decision —
whichever occurs last. [emphasis given].
[16]. The procedure for the lodging of an appeal to the Water Tribunal is contained in
Part 2 of Schedule 6 which regulates how an appeal is commenced. There are
two distinct steps to commencing an appeal. The first is the service of a copy of
5
a written notice of appeal on the relevant responsible authority. The second is
the lodging of the original notice of appeal with the Tribunal.1
2. Extension of time periods: s 66
[17]. Section 66 of the Act provides that only the Minister may extend a statutory time
period or condone non- compliance therewith “in exceptional circumstances and
for good reason.”
3. The Tribunal’s limited powers
[18]. Item 5(2) of Schedule 6 empowers the Tribunal to condone only the late lodging
of the appeal with the Tribunal — not the late service of an appeal, nor the late
commencement of the appeal.
4. The authoritative position: SCA judgment (February 2025)
[19]. In Kangra Coal (Pty) Ltd v Trustees for the Time Being of the Corneels Greyling
Trust and Others [2025] ZASCA 9, the Supreme Court of Appeal held
unambiguously that:
• The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to condone late appeals under s ection
148(3);
• Only the Minister may extend time under section 66;
• The Tribunal “ought not to have entertained” such condonation
applications.
1 Item 6 of Part 2 to Schedule 2 to the Act.
6
[20]. This pronouncement is binding on this Court and dispositive of the present matter.
E. ANALYSIS
1. The respondents’ appeal was late
[21]. The respondents were notified of the decision on 3 December 2021.
[22]. Even allowing for repeated requests for reasons, they elected to lodge an appeal
without such reasons in July 2022, which was 7–8 months late.
[23]. The Tribunal erred in holding that the trigger date was the later provision of
reasons. The respondents had already filed their appeal long before reasons
were furnished, thereby waiving reliance on the reasons-trigger date.
[24]. The statutory 30-day period had long expired, and no extension was sought from
the Minister as required by section 66.
2. The Tribunal lacked jurisdiction
[25]. In terms of the authoritative SCA decision, the Tribunal cannot extend the time
period for commencing an appeal under section 148(3).
[26]. The Tribunal’s finding that (i) there was a legally compliant appeal lodged by the
appellants and it “would have granted condonation” did not take into account that
an appeal commences when the copy of the notice of appeal is served on the
Minister and the original is lodged with the Tribunal. It is only then that the appeal
commences. The Tribunal has only the power to condone the late lodging of the
appeal. The Tribunal thus erred in finding that the appeal was valid, timeous, or
capable of being condoned. Its finding in this regard, was ultra vires.
7
3. Consequence
[27]. If a copy of the notice of appeal is served after the expiry of the 30-day period
without a Ministerial extension, an appeal to the Tribunal does not commence
and therefore no appeal exists and thus there can be no valid appeal. The finding
that a valid appeal existed cannot be sustained.
[28]. The Tribunal’s decision must therefore be set aside and substituted with a
declaration that no valid appeal was before the Tribunal.
F. COSTS
[29]. The matter was unopposed. The interests of justice dictate no order as to costs.
G. ORDER
[30]. The following order is made:
1. The appeal is upheld.
2. The decision of the Water Tribunal dated 19 April 2024 is reviewed and set
aside.
3. It is declared that:
3.1. The Water Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to condone or determine any
appeal purportedly lodged by the respondents under s 148(3) of the
National Water Act 36 of 1998.
3.2. No valid appeal existed before the Water Tribunal, as the
respondents’ appeal was lodged outside the 30-day period
prescribed bys 148(3), and no extension was granted by the Minister
under s 66.
4. The Tribunal's order is replaced with the following:
"There is no valid appeal before the Tribunal."
5. No order as to costs.
I agree
Date of hearing:
Date of Judgment:
On behalf of the Applicant:
With him:
Attorneys for the Applicants:
29 April 2025
12 February 2026
Adv P Louw SC
Adv GJ Scheepers SC
J.S. NYATHI
Judge of the High Court
Gauteng Division, Pretoria
S.K. HASSIM
Judge of the High Court
Gauteng Division, Pretoria
Van der Merwe & Van den Berg Attorneys .
8
9
Delivery: This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the parties'
legal representatives by email and uploaded on the CaseLines electronic platform. The
date for hand-down is deemed to be 12 February 2026.