Companies’ Human Rights: The Implications for a Human Rights Approach to Climate Change Litigation in South Africa

ABSTRACT

Taking a human rights approach to climate litigation is a more recent phenomenon in Africa than it is in the states of the Global North. Using South Africa as a case study, this article examines that approach and the implications of companies’ competence to assert human rights. It finds that companies, like natural persons, have certain human rights in South Africa, and that the human rights approach, which appears promising to litigant individuals and NGOs, is also available to companies. It argues that a human rights approach to climate change litigation can be used either positively by litigant individuals and NGOs or negatively by companies in the country.

KEYWORDS:

• Human rights
• companies
• climate change
• litigation
• South Africa

Notes

1 The Paris Agreement is an agreement within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and implements the Convention. It was adopted by parties to the Convention on 12 December 2015. It entered into force on 4 November 2016.

2 United Nations Climate Change, ‘Paris Agreement-Status of Ratification’ https://unfccc.int/process/the-paris-agreement/status-of-ratification (accessed 26 April 2024).

3 Michael Nachmany and others, Global Trends in Climate Change Legislation and Litigation (Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, May 2017) 5.

4 Joana Setzer and Catherine Higham, Global Trends in Climate Change Litigation: 2023 Snapshot (Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment and Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science 2021) 2. Classification of climate cases may be contestable, see Kim Bouwer, ‘The Unsexy Future of Climate Change Litigation’ (2018) 30(3) Journal of Environmental Law 483–506.

5 Setzer and Higham, Global Trends in Climate Change Litigation: 2023 Snapshot (n 4) 12.

6 Setzer and Higham, Global Trends in Climate Change Litigation: 2023 Snapshot (n 4) 12–14.

7 Save Lamu and others v National Environmental Management Authority and Amu Power Co Ltd, Tribunal Appeal No. Net 196 of 2016; Legal Advice Centre T/A Kituo cha Sheria & Anor v Attorney General and 7 Others (2022) Iten ELC Petition No. 007 of 2022 (The Environment and Land Court of Iten, Kenya).

8 Gbemre v Shell Petroleum Development Company Nigeria Limited and others (2005) African Human Rights Law Report (AHRLR) 151 (Federal High Court, Nigeria); Centre for Oil Pollution Watch (COPW) v NNPC (2018) Supreme Court of Nigeria.

9 Earthlife Africa Johannesburg v Minister of Environmental Affairs and Others (65662/16) [2017] ZAGPPHC 58; [2017] 2 All SA 519 (GP); Trustees for the Time Being of GroundWork v Minister of Environmental Affairs, ACWA Power Khanyisa Thermal Power Station RF (Pty) Ltd, and others Case No 61561/17 (2017) (High Court, South Africa); Trustees for the Time Being of GroundWork v Minister of Environmental Affairs, KiPower (Pty) Ltd, and others Case No. 54087/17 (2017) (High Court, South Africa); Philippi Horticultural Area Food & Farming Campaign, et al v MEC for Local Government, Environmental Affairs and Development Planning Western Cape, et al Case No. 16779/17 (2019) (High Court, South Africa); Sustaining the Wild Coast NPC and Others v Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy and Others Case No. 3491/2021 (High Court of South Africa, Eastern Cape Division, Grahamstown); Africa Climate Alliance et. al., v Minister of Mineral Resources & Energy et. al. (#CancelCoal case) Case No. 56907/21; The City of Cape Town v National Energy Regulator of South Africa and Minister of Energy Case No. 51765/17 (High Court); South Durban Community Environmental Alliance v Minister of Environment and Others Case No. 17554/2021 (High Court); SDCEA & Groundwork v Minister of Forestry, Fisheries, and the Environment 2021 (High Court).

10 Mbabazi and others v The Attorney General and National Environmental Management Authority Civil Suit No 283 of 2012 (2012) (High Court, Kampala, Uganda); Tsama William and Others v. Uganda’s Attorney General and Others Miscellaneous Cause No. 024 of 2020 (High Court, Uganda).

11 Centre for Food and Adequate Living Rights etal v Tanzania and Uganda 2020 East African Court of Justice.

12 See Save Lamu (n 7), Gbemre (n 8), Centre for Oil Pollution Watch (COPW) (n 8); Earthlife (n 9), ACWA Power (n 9); KiPower (n 9), Philippi (n 9); Sustaining the Wild Coast NPC (n 9); South Durban Community Environmental Alliance (n 9).

13 See Legal Advice Centre T/A Kituo cha Sheria (n 7); Africa Climate Alliance (n 9); The City of Cape Town (n 9); SDCEA & Groundwork (n 9); Mbabazi (n 10); Tsama William (n 10) and Centre for Food and Adequate Living Rights (n 11).

14 Mark P Nevitt and Robert V Percival, ‘Could Official Climate Denial Revive the Common Law as a Regulatory Backstop?’ (2018) 96(3) Washington University Law Review 441-494.

15 Robert F Blomquist ‘Comparative Climate Change Torts’ (2012) 46 Valparaiso University Law Review 1053-1075.

16 For example, there are Federal Clean Air Act 17 December 1963, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. ss 4321-4370h) and the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C., ss 1531-1544) in the United States. Similarly, there is Environmental Impact Assessment Act 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) in Australia. In addition, there are Environmental Impact Assessment Act, Cap E12 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria (LFN) 2004, National Environmental Standards and Regulations Enforcement Agency (Establishment) Act 2007, and Climate Change Act 2021 in Nigeria while in South Africa there are National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998 and National Environmental Management Biodiversity Act 10 of 2004. With respect to policy, Nigeria has National Adaptation Strategy and Plan of Action on Climate Change 2011, and the National Policy on Climate Change for Nigeria 2015 while South Africa has National Climate Change Response White Paper 2012.

17 Zachary L Berliner, ‘What about Uncle Sam-Carving A New Place for the Public Trust Doctrine in Federal Climate Litigation’ (2018) 21(4) University of Pennsylvania Journal of Law and Social Change 339–357.

18 Joana Setzer and Catherine Higham, Global Trends in Climate Change Litigation: 2021 Snapshot (Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment and Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science 2021) 6.

19 Setzer and Higham, Global Trends in Climate Change Litigation: 2021 Snapshot (n 18) 6.

20 Setzer and Higham, Global Trends in Climate Change Litigation: 2023 Snapshot (n 4) 23.

21 Setzer and Higham, Global Trends in Climate Change Litigation: 2023 Snapshot (n 4) 23. See Notre Affaire à Tous Les Amis de la Terre, and Oxfam France v BNP Paribas (2023) Judicial Court of Paris; Greenpeace Italy et. al. v ENI S.p.A., the Italian Ministry of Economy and Finance and Cassa Depositi e Prestiti S.p.A. (2023) (Civil Court of Rome).

22 Setzer and Higham, Global Trends in Climate Change Litigation: 2021 (n 18) 6.

23 PT Sekoai and MO Daramola, ‘Biohydrogen as a Potential Energy Fuel in South Africa’ (2015) 6 Biofuel Research Journal 223.

24 Tracy-Lynn Field, ‘Climate Change Litigation in South Africa: Firmly Out of the Starting Blocks’ in Ivano Alogna, Christine Bakker and Jean-Pierre Gauci (eds), Climate Change Litigation: Global Perspectives (Brill 2021) 173.

25 Climate Action Tracker, ‘Summary of Pledges and Targets: Copenhagen Accord’ https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/south-africa/2019-09-19/pledges-and-targets/#:∼:text=an%20unconditional%20target.-,2020%20pledge,415%E2%80%93631%20MtCO2e%20by%202025. (accessed 26 April 2024).

26 Department of Mineral Resources and Energy ‘Integrated Resource Plan 2019’ 44 (South Africa).

27 Minerals Council South Africa, Facts and Figures Pocket Book (Minerals Council South Africa 2019) 1–5.

28 Jacqueline Peel and Hari M Osofsky, ‘A Rights Turn in Climate Change Litigation?’ (2018) 7(1) Transnational Environmental Law 37–67.

29 Department of Environmental Affairs, ‘South Africa’s Third National Communication under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change’ 31 August 2018 at 196.

30 Republic of South Africa, ‘National Climate Change Response: White Paper’ (Undated) 12.

31 On human rights of companies, see Marius Emberland, The Human Rights of Companies: Exploring the Structure of ECHR Protection (Oxford University Press 2006); Edward J Schoen, Corporations Have As Many Constitutional Rights As Individuals: How Did This Happen? (Cambridge Scholars Publishing 2020) 120–147.

32 See also Ex Parte Chairperson of the Constitutional Assembly: In Re Certification of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 1996 (4) SA 744 (CC), para 57.

33 Fareed Moosa, ‘A Deceased Taxpayer: ‘Juristic Person’ for Constitutional Purposes?’ (2020) 32 South African Mercantile Law Journal 51–74.

34 Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd [1896] UKHL 1, [1897] AC 22.

35 Constitution of the Republic of South Africa 1996 (South African Constitution), s 9.

36 Ibid s 14. See Investigating Director: Serious Economic Offences v Hyundai Motor Distributors (Pty) Ltd: In re Hyundai Motor Distributors (Pty) Ltd v Smit N.O. 2001 (1) SA 545 (CC), para 18; Chrome Insurance Brokers Ltd and Others v Economic and Financial Crimes Commission and Others (2018) LCN/11830 (CA).

37 South African Constitution, s 16. See Concord Press Nigeria Ltd v AG Federation (1994) FHCLR 144; Punch Nigeria Ltd and Another v AG Federation and Others (1998) HRLRA 488; Autronic AG v Switzerland (1990) 12 EHRR 485; Demuth v Switzerland (2004) 38 EHRR 20.

38 South African Constitution, s 18.

39 Ibid s 22.

40 Ibid s 25. See JIBO v Ministry of Education and Others (2016) LPELR-CA/OW/425/2013; Tell Communication Ltd and Others v State Security Service (2002) HRLRA 104.

41 South African Constitution, s 32.

42 Ibid s 33(1).

43 Ibid s 33(2).

44 Ibid s 34. See Chitra Knitting and Weaving Manufacturing Co Ltd v GO Akingbade [2016] 14 NWLR (Pt 1533) 487; Martman Transport Ltd v AG Federation (2003) 2 FHCLR.

45 South African Constitution, s 10. See Investigating Director: Serious Economic Offences v Hyundai Motor Distributors (Pty) Ltd: In re Hyundai Motor Distributors (Pty) Ltd v Smit N.O. 2001 (1) SA 545 (CC), para 18; Tulip Diamonds FZE v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development 2013 (2) SACR 443 (CC), para 35; Opara and Others v SPDCN and others [2015] 14 NWLR (Pt 1479) 307. While companies may not be able to claim the right to human dignity because they do not have personal self-worth like humans, their competence to make a claim under this right cannot be completely foreclosed since they can file an action on libel for damage to reputation. An action meant to injure the reputation of a company can be remedied by an invocation of the right to dignity. See Reddell and Others v Mineral Sands Resources (Pty) Ltd and Others 2023 (2) SA 404 (CC), per Unterhalter AJ (dissenting), (Kollapen J concurring), paras 156-158 where reputation is held to be an aspect of human dignity.

46 South African Constitution, s 11. While companies do not have the right to life because they do not have a body that makes enjoyment of these rights possible, they may be able to invoke the right when the state takes steps to snuff the life out of them and push them towards liquidation. This can be done, for example, through excessive taxation.

47 South African Constitution, s 12(1)(a). See FBN Plc and Others v AG Federation [2018] 7 NWLR (Pt 1617) 121 where companies have been denied the right to liberty since they cannot be arrested and detained. However, while it is self-evident that companies cannot be arrested and detained, it can be argued that they can be unlawfully closed and denied the opportunity of operating even though they are still in existence as a matter of law. This can be likened to the way a natural person can be fettered and prevented from performing even though they have not been killed.

48 South African Constitution, s 27.

49 Ibid s 24.

50 For example, Human Rights Act 1998 (UK).

51 For example, see Federal Clean Air Act (1963), National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act (United States); Environmental Impact Assessment Act 1969 (Australia); and Environmental Impact Assessment Act 2004 and Climate Change Act 2021 (Nigeria).

52 South Africa signed it on 15 June 1993 and ratified it on 29 August 1997.

53 South Africa ratified it on 31 July 2002 and its amendment on 7 May 2015.

54 South Africa signed it on 22 April 2016 and ratified it on 1 November 2016.

55 (65662/16) [2017] ZAGPPHC 58; [2017] 2 All SA 519 (GP). For a reflection on this decision from a human rights lens, see Ademola O Jegede and Azwihangwisi W Makulana, ‘Climate Change Interventions in South Africa: the Significance of Earthlife Africa Johannesburg v Minister of Environmental Affairs and Others [2017] JOL 37526 (GP)’ (2019) 15(2) Obiter 399–407.

56 It is noteworthy that the Paris Agreement contains human rights and reinforces reading it in conjunction with the Bill of Rights as required by section 39(1)(b)of the South African Constitution. In several of its provisions it refers to sustainable development, which involves human rights. See Sumudu Atapattu, ‘The Paris Agreement and Human Rights: Is Sustainable Development the ‘New Human Right’?’ (2018) 9(1) Journal of Human Rights and the Environment 68–88.

57 In the Company Secretary of Ancelormittal South Africa and Another v Vaal Environmental Justice Alliance 2015 (1) SA 515 (SCA) Vaal, the plaintiff, which was an NGO requested the defendant, Ancelormittal which was South Africa’s largest producer of steel to supply it the information in the defendant’s custody with respect to the defendant’s compliance with its own Environmental Master Plan pertaining to the rehabilitation of the Vanderbijlpark site. Vaal relied on sections 50(1)(a) and 53 of The Promotion of Access to Information Act 2 of 2000. The defendant contended that Vaal wanted to usurp the role of the state in enforcing environmental regulations. The Supreme Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the trial court and decided against Ancelormittal, stating that under South Africa’s constitutional dispensation, there is no room for secrecy and that constitutional values would be enforced. Although this case is not a human rights case, nonetheless the approach is discernible in a human rights approach to climate change litigation. The only difference is that the Act will only play a supporting role to the Bill of Rights. It is noteworthy that the Court’s pronouncement dovetails into environmental constitutionalism. On environmental constitutionalism, see James R May and Erin Daly, Global Judicial Handbook on Environmental Constitutionalism (3rd edn, United Nations Environment Programme 2019); James R May and Erin Daly, Global Judicial Handbook on Environmental Constitutionalism (2nd edn, United Nations Environment Programme 2018); James R May and Erin Daly, Judicial Handbook on Environmental Constitutionalism (United Nations Environment Programme 2017).

58 Friends of the Earth Germany, Association of Solar Supporters, and Others v Germany (2018) (German Federal Constitutional Court); Family Farmers and Greenpeace Germany v Germany (2018) 00271/17/R/SP (Berlin Administrative Court).

59 Future Generations v Ministry of the Environment and Others (2018) (Supreme Court of Colombia); Earthlife Africa Johannesburg [2017] ZAGPPHC 58; [2017] 2 All SA 519 (GP); Leghari v Federation of Pakistan (2015) W.P. No. 25501/201 (Lahore High Court).

60 Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, Inc v Chevron Corp 3: 18-cv-07477.

61 West Virginia v Environmental Protection Agency (2015) No 15-1363 (DC Cir.); Coalition for Responsible Regulation, Inc v Environmental Protection Agency No 09-1322 (DC Cir. June 26, 2012).

62 Sally Engle Merry, Human Rights and Gender Violence: Translating International Law into Local Justice (The University of Chicago Press 2006) 40; Jack Donnelly, ‘International Human Rights Law: Universal, Relative, or Relatively Universal’ in Mashood A Baderin and Manisuli Ssenyonjo (eds), International Human Rights Law: Six Decades After the UDHR and Beyond (Ashgate 2010) 31–48.

63 Ademola Oluborode Jegede, The Climate Change Regulatory Framework and Indigenous Peoples’ Lands in Africa: Human Rights Implications (Pretoria University Law Press 2016) 50–70.

64 President of the Republic of South Africa and Another v John Phillip Peter Hugo 1997 (4) SA 1 (CC). See also Mbanefo v Molokwu [2014] 6 NWLR (Pt. 1403) 377 (Nigeria); The Sunday Times v The United Kingdom (1979) 2 EHRR 245 (United Kingdom); Committee for Commonwealth of Canada v Canada (1991) 77 DLR (4th) 385 (Canada).

65 Occupiers of 51 Olivia Road and Others v City of Johannesburg and Others 2008 (3) SA 208 (CC).

66 United Nations Environment Programme, The Status of Climate Change Litigation-A Global Review (United Nations Environment Programme 2017) 28; M Hanley, ‘Why Crocodiles, Elephants, and American Citizens Would Prefer Foreign Courts: A Comparative Analysis of Standing to Sue’ (2002) 21(1) The Review of Litigation 97.

67 Decision C-035/16 of February 8, 2016 (Colombian Constitutional Court); In re Court on its own Motion v State of Himachal Pradesh and others 2013 (CWPIL No. 15 of 2010) (National Green Tribunal India); Leghari v Federation of Pakistan (2015) W.P. No. 25501/201 (Lahore High Court); Gbemre v Shell Petroleum Development Company Nigeria Limited and others (2005) African Human Rights Law Report (AHRLR) 151 (Federal High Court, Nigeria).

68 International Commission of Jurists, Courts and the Legal Enforcement of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: Comparative Experiences of Justiciability (International Commission of Jurists 2008) 6.

69 Decision C-035/16 of February 8, 2016 (Colombian Constitutional Court); In re Court on its own Motion v State of Himachal Pradesh and others 2013 (CWPIL No. 15 of 2010) (National Green Tribunal India); Leghari v Federation of Pakistan (2015) W.P. No. 25501/201 (Lahore High Court); Gbemre v Shell Petroleum Development Company Nigeria Limited and others (2005) African Human Rights Law Report (AHRLR) 151 (Federal High Court, Nigeria).

70 Gbemre v Shell Petroleum Development Company Nigeria Limited and others (2005) African Human Rights Law Report (AHRLR) 151 (Federal High Court, Nigeria).

71 Lydia Omuko, ‘Applying the Precautionary Principle to Address the “Proof Problem” in Climate Change Litigation’ (2016) 12(1) Tilburg Law Review 55.

72 For example, see Tatar v. Roumanie App no 67021/01 (ECtHR, 5 July 2007).

73 Margaretha Wewerinke-Singh, ‘Remedies for Human Rights Violations Caused by Climate Change’ (2019) 9 Climate Law 224–243, 232–233.

74 Margaretha Wewerinke-Singh, State Responsibility, Climate Change and Human Rights under International Law (Hart Publishing 2019) 95.

75 155/96: Social and Economic Rights Action Center (SERAC) and Center for Economic and Social Rights (CESR) / Nigeria, para 45.

76 Ibid para 46.

77 Ibid.

78 Ibid para 47.

79 Walter Kälin and Jörg Künzli, The Law of International Human Rights Protection (2nd edn, Oxford University Press 2019) 85–108.

80 See the Bundesverfassungsgericht (BVerfG) 29 April 2021.

81 Christina Eckes, ‘Separation of Powers in Climate Cases: Comparing Cases in Germany and the Netherlands’(Verfassungsblog, 10 May 2021) https://verfassungsblog.de/separation-of-powers-in-climate-cases/ (accessed on 26 April 2024).

82 On the right to justification, see Rainer Forst, The Right to Justification: Elements of a Constructivist Theory of Justice (Jeffrey Flynn trans., Columbia University Press 2012).

83 Annalisa Savaresi, ‘Plugging the Enforcement Gap: The Rise and Rise of Human Rights in Climate Change Litigation’ (2021) 77 QIL, Zoom-in 1–3, 2.

84 Wewerinke-Singh, State Responsibility, Climate Change and Human Rights under International Law (n 74) 140.

85 Heather Colby and others, ‘Judging Climate Change: The Role of the Judiciary in the Fight Against Climate’ Change (2020) 7 Oslo Law Review 168–185, 168.

86 South African Constitution, s 9.

87 Ibid s 14.

88 Ibid s 16(1).

89 Ibid s 18.

90 Ibid s 22.

91 Ibid s 25.

92 Ibid s 32.

93 Ibid s 33(1).

94 Ibid s 33(2).

95 Ibid s 34.

96 Reddell and Others v Mineral Sands Resources (Pty) Ltd and Others 2023 (2) SA 404 (CC).

97 See Stéfanie Khoury and David Whyte, Corporate Human Rights Violations: Global Prospects for Legal Action (Routledge 2017) 136–149.

98 S v Makwanyane 1995 (3) SA 391 (CC); Allan R Brewer-Carías (ed), Constitutional Courts as Positive Legislators (Cambridge University Press 2011).

99 Roe v Wade 410 U.S. 113 (1973); Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization No. 19-1392 597 US_(2022). See also Richard A Posner, How Judges Think (Harvard University Press 2008) 269–323.

100 US v Classic 313 U.S. 299 (1941).

101 South African Constitution, s 2: ‘This Constitution is the supreme law of the Republic; law or conduct inconsistent with it is invalid, and the obligations imposed by it must be fulfilled.’

102 See Stéfanie Khoury and David Whyte, Corporate Human Rights Violations: Global Prospects for Legal Action (Routledge 2017) 136–149; Helena Paul, ‘Corporations Are Not Human, So Why Should They Have Human Rights?’ https://www.econexus.info/publication/corporations-are-not-human-so-why-should-they-have-human-rights (accessed 26 April 2024).

103 George W Pring and Penelope Canan, SLAPPs: Getting Sued for Speaking Out (Temple University Press 1996) 8–9.

104 Mineral Sands Resources (Pty) Ltd v Christine Reddell 2023 (2) SA 68 (CC), para 42.

105 Mineral Sands Resources (Pty) Ltd v Christine Reddell 2021 (4) SA 268 (WCC), para 39.

106 Mineral Sands Resources (Pty) Ltd v Christine Reddell 2023 (2) SA 68 (CC), para 44.

107 Tumai Murombo and Heinrich Valentine ‘Slapp Suits: An Emerging Obstacle to Public Interest Environmental Litigation in South Africa’ (2011) 27(1) South African Journal on Human Rights 82, 84.

108 Mineral Sands Resources (Pty) Ltd v Christine Reddell 2021 (4) SA 268 (WCC), para 39.

109 Mineral Sands Resources (Pty) Ltd and Others v Reddell and Others 2023 (2) SA 68 (CC), para 43.

110 Mineral Sands Resources (Pty) Ltd v Christine Reddell 2023 (2) SA 68 (CC), para 43.

111 George W Pring, ‘SLAPPs: Strategic Lawsuits against Public Participation’ (1989) 7(1) Pace Environmental Law Review 3, 9.

112 For example, in Canada, it is relatively new. See 1704604 Ontario Ltd v Pointes Protection Association 2020 SCC 22; Bent v Platnick 2020 SCC 23. See also Code of Civil Procedure, article 54 (Quebec); Protection of Public Participation Act 2015 (Ontario); Protection of Public Participation Act 2019 (British Columbia). In Australia, see Uniform National Defamation Laws 2006 and Protection of Public Participation Act 2008.

113 Murombo and Valentine (n 107) 97-105; Mineral Sands Resources (Pty) Ltd v Christine Reddell 2021 (4) SA 268 (WCC).

114 Mineral Sands Resources (Pty) Ltd and Others v Reddell and Others 2023 (2) SA 68 (CC).

115 Reddell and Others v Mineral Sands Resources (Pty) Ltd and Others 2023 (2) SA 404 (CC).

116 Mineral Sands Resources (Pty) Ltd v Christine Reddell 2021 (4) SA 268 (WCC).

117 Media 24 Ltd v SA Taxi Securitisation (Pty) Ltd 2011 (5) SA 329 (SCA).

118 Media 24 Ltd v SA Taxi Securitisation (Pty) Ltd 2011 (5) SA 329 (SCA).

(2) SA 68 (CC), para 78.

119 Mineral Sands Resources (Pty) Ltd and Others v Reddell and Others 2023 (2) SA 68 (CC).

120 Ibid para 79.

121 Ibid para 94.

122 Reddell and Others v Mineral Sands Resources (Pty) Ltd and Others 2023 (2) SA 404 (CC).

123 The Constitutional Court appears to be conscious of this. See Mineral Sands Resources (Pty) Ltd and Others v Reddell and Others 2023 (2) SA 68 (CC), para 94.