Centre for Environmental Rights – Advancing Environmental Rights in South Africa

Uzani 1: The Private Prosecution

• Court: High Court of South Africa, Gauteng Division, Pretoria
• Case No.  82/2017
• Date: 25 March and 1 April 2019
• Judge: Spilg J
• Judgment available :  Private Prosecution judgment (Uzani 1)

In this matter, BP Southern Africa (Pty) Ltd was found guilty of offences in terms of the Environment Conservation Act, 1989 (ECA) and the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (NEMA). The Court found that BP commenced listed activities related to the construction and management of filling stations without environmental authorisation in terms of those Acts.

This is South Africa’s first successful private prosecution under section 33 of NEMA.

See also subsequent judgments in this matter:

• Uzani 2: Preliminary issues
  • Application to hold a post-conviction enquiry under s 34(3) of NEMA into the monetary value of the advantage which BP might have gained in consequence of the offences it committed, and application to require requires BP to produce a statement and provide documents and detailed calculations covering all sales of petroleum products and all income derived by it from each of the filling stations to which the offences relate.
  • Judgment available here.
• Uzani 3: The Sentencing of BP
  • Judgment available here.
  • The court held an enquiry under s 34 (3)(g) of NEMA after which it heard the parties on sentencing and on 6 September 2024 BP was sentenced for the contraventions under the following penal provisions of NEMA and ECA:
    1. In respect of the counts under s 34(3) of NEMA, a fine of R 6 245 424
    2. In respect of the counts under s 29(4) of ECA, an initial fine of R 6 187 650
    3. In respect of the additional fine under s 29(4) of ECA, an amount of R 47 112 970.
• Uzani 4: Costs of litigation
  • Judgment available here.
  • This matter resolved three issues relating to costs:
    • Firstly, the court considered whether Uzani was entitled to an order for costs under s 34B of NEMA (which provides for an award of part of fine recovered to an informant). In this respect, the court held that Uzani was private prosecutors (not an informant) and Uzani was not entitled to this.
    • Secondly, the court considered whether Uzani was entitled to be covered in advance for the costs of appeal under s 33(3) of NEMA (which provides that a court may order a person convicted upon a private prosecution to pay the costs and expenses of the prosecution, including the costs of any appeal against such conviction or any sentence). The court found that Uzani was not entitled to appeal costs in advance.
    • On the third and final issue, the court considered what costs Uzani was entitled to and on what scale, as well as the applicability of Rule 67A of the Uniform Rules of Court. The court found that Uzani was entitled to costs, and on the scale of attorney and client costs.