Print Page
News & Press: Case Law

Retail Motor Industry Organisation v Minister of Water & Environmental Affairs (145/13) [2013]

Wednesday, 17 July 2013   (0 Comments)
Posted by: Author: Charl Geldenhuys
Share |

Author: Charl Geldenhuys (TheSAIT)

Retail Motor Industry Organisation v Minister of Water & Environmental Affairs (145/13) [2013] ZASCA 70 (23 May 2013)

Parties in the Court case

The two appellants in this court case were the Retail Motor Industry Organisation (RMI)(First Appellant) and the Circuit Fitment cc (Second Appellant). The two respondents in the case were the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs (First Appellant) and the Recycling & Economic Development Initiative of South Africa NPC (REDISA) (Second Appellant).


The minister of Water and Environmental Affairs is empowered by the Waste Act No. 59 of 2008 to publish plans drafted by private parties to manage waste. In this case, the Minister approved and published a plan drafted by REDISA. The appellants challenged the validity of the approval of the plan in an application for judicial review. They sought an interim interdict to prevent the plan’s implementation. Tuchten J, found an item in the plan which was invalid and granted the interim interdict.

The plan was withdrawn by the Minster and was later published without the invalid item. The appellants held that the Minister was not entitled to withdraw and republish the new plan because the plan must first be set aside in the review proceedings. The RMI and Circuit cc applied to the North Gauteng High Court for orders against the Minister and REDISA for:

  1. A declarator that the Minister’s withdrawal of the plan, on 30 November 2012, to be a nullity;
  2. The approval by the Minister on that same day to be reviewed an set aside;
  3. Both the respondents to be interdicted from implementing the amended plan.

 Issues of the case

The fundamental issues in the appeal case were:

  1. Whether or not the Minister had the legal authority to withdraw REDISA’s plan;
  2. Whether or not the procedural requirements has been complied with for the approval of the plan;
  3. Whether the plan was invalid due to the lack of information;
  4. Whether or not the plan could have been lawfully approved because REDISA is not a tyre producer; and
  5. Whether the plan may regulate the disposal of solid and pneumatic tyres


The appeal was dismissed with costs, including the cost of two counsels. The order of the courts below was amended to read that the application was dismissed with cost and that every reference to solid tyres in the second respondents Integrated Industry Waste Tyre Management Plan is set aside.

For the full court case, click here.



Section 240A of the Tax Administration Act, 2011 (as amended) requires that all tax practitioners register with a recognized controlling body before 1 July 2013. It is a criminal offense to not register with both a recognized controlling body and SARS.

  • Tax Practitioner Registration Requirements & FAQ's
  • Rate Our Service

    Membership Management Software Powered by YourMembership  ::  Legal