The Cancel Coal case was initiated in November 2021 by the African Climate Alliance (a youth-led organization), Vukani Environmental Justice Movement in Action, and Groundwork Trust, represented by the Centre for Environmental Rights. These groups filed proceedings in the High Court of South Africa to challenge the government’s decision to include 1,500 MW of new coal-fired power in the Integrated Resource Plan of 2019. The applicants named the Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy, the National Energy Regulator of South Africa (NERSA), the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment, and the President as respondents.

The applicants argued that the government’s decision violated multiple constitutional rights, including the right to a healthy environment (section 24), the best interests of children (section 28), and the rights to life, dignity, and equality. They contended that coal-fired power, a major contributor to climate change and environmental degradation, posed severe risks to public health, particularly for children and future generations. Expert evidence was presented to demonstrate the harmful effects of coal emissions on health, livelihoods, and food security, as well as the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of cleaner, renewable energy alternatives. The applicants also criticized the decision-making process for failing to: (i) conduct specific impact assessments on children’s rights, (ii) consider cleaner coal technologies or renewable energy options, and (iii) ensure public participation, particularly from youth and vulnerable communities. An interlocutory application was filed in 2022 to compel the government to provide complete records of the decision, which the court granted on December 9, 2022. The Minister of Electricity was added as a fifth respondent on April 17, 2024.

In a judgment handed down on December 4, 2024, Judge Cornelius van der Westhuizen ruled that the government’s plan to procure 1,500 MW of new coal-fired power was unconstitutional, unlawful, and invalid. The court found that the government had failed to meet its constitutional and statutory obligations by: (i) omitting any assessment of the decision’s impact on children’s health and well-being, (ii) failing to evaluate the feasibility of high-efficiency, low-emission coal technologies, and (iii) neglecting its obligation to ensure transparent and participatory decision-making processes. The court noted that the government’s Rule 53 record provided no evidence of adequate consideration of the environmental and health impacts of coal power, particularly on children. The respondents’ argument that South Africa’s energy crisis justified the procurement of coal-fired power was dismissed, as the court found no evidence supporting the necessity of coal over renewable alternatives. The judgment ordered the Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy and NERSA to pay the applicants’ legal costs, including the costs of two counsel.

Africa Climate Alliance et. al., v. Minister of Mineral Resources & Energy et. al. (#CancelCoal case)

<p>This entry was provided by the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. Please see the terms of use for citation and licensing of third party data.</p>

Africa Climate Alliance et. al., v. Minister of Mineral Resources & Energy et. al. (#CancelCoal case) - reply

Filed

South Africa

The Climate Litigation Database

Find climate change litigation data and indicators for {text}.

{text} litigation

Sabin Center for Climate Change Law provides Climate Litigation Database, a comprehensive database of US and Global climate change caselaw

Quickly and easily search through the complete text of thousands of climate change law and policy documents from every country.

Search the Climate Litigation Database

An aim to achieve a quantifiable outcome within a given time-frame, set by an institution such as a national government.

Policy instruments are techniques or tools used by governing authorities to promote certain policies in order to achieve predetermined goals. Put simply, instruments are how a government tries to achieve its goals, with this taxonomy being focused on national policy instruments.

Risk is the potential for adverse consequences resulting from the dynamic interplay between (climate-related) hazards, exposure, and vulnerability of affected human or ecological systems.

Groups  of people who are adversely affected by climate change or the response to it

A set of principles, processes, and practices that build economic and political power to shift from an extractive economy to a regenerative economy.

Justice is the ethical and political framework that addresses fairness, including issues of responsibility, rights, and structural inequity.

Renewable energy means all forms of energy produced from renewable sources in a sustainable manner.

Fossil fuel is a generic term for non-renewable energy sources such as coal, fossil gas, and oil (including crude oil, and petroleum products), that can be used for electricity and heat generation. Fossil fuels are hydrocarbons formed from pressurised and heated organic material buried over millions of years.

Molecules in the atmosphere that play a key role in the greenhouse effect by trapping heat radiating from Earth’s surface.

Area of the economy in which actors engage in identical or related activities.

In human systems, the process of adjustment to actual or expected climate change and its effects, in order to moderate harm, increase resilience or exploit beneficial opportunities. In natural systems, the process of adjustment to actual climate change and its effects; human intervention may facilitate adjustment to expected climate change and its effects.

The management and allocation of funds, assets and investments to meet various objectives

Activities involving the catching, processing, and selling of fish for food, recreation, and industry.

Africa Climate Alliance et. al., v. Minister of Mineral Resources & Energy et. al. (#CancelCoal case) - reply

Economic sector