THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

JUDGMENT

CASE NO:530/06

Not reportable
In the matter between

ROGER AINSLEY RALPH KEBBLE

1ST APPELLANT
HENDRIK CHRISTOFFEL BUITENDAG

2ND APPELLANT
GORDON TREVLYN MILLER

3RD APPELLANT
and
THE MINISTER OF WATER AFFAIRS AND FORESTRY
RESPONDENT

CORAM: HARMS ADP, LEWIS, VAN HEERDEN, JAFTA JJA, KGOMO AJA
HEARD:  23 AUGUST 2007
DELIVERED: 21 SEPTEMBER 2007
SUMMARY: An order that a person is in contempt of court, which carries with it
criminal sanctions, should be made only where the court order allegedly flouted
is clear and capable of enforcement. Appeal upheld against an order that former
directors of a company that did not comply with a court order were in contempt of
court.

Neutral Citation: This judgment may be referred to as Kebble v Minister of Water
Affairs [2007] SCA 111 (RSA).

LEWIS JA

[1] The appellants, to whom I shall refer as ‘the directors’, were until 17 June
2005, the directors of Stilfontein Gold Mining Company Limited (‘SGM’). This is
an appeal against an order that the directors were in contempt of court for failing
to ensure compliance with an order of the Johannesburg High Court.

[2] The Regional Director of the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry,
Free State (‘the Department’), over a period from April 2005, issued directives to
a number of mining companies in the Klerksdorp, Orkney, Stilfontein and
Hartebeesfontein area (the KOSH area), including SGM, about the pumping of
water from mine shafts. When SGM failed to comply with the directives, the
Department applied to the Johannesburg High Court, on an urgent basis, for an
order compelling SGM to comply with the Department’s directives. Goldstein J
issued an order on the terms requested on 18 May 2005.

[3] SGM, through its attorneys, indicated in a letter to the Department dated 9
June 2005, that it could not comply with that order. The Department nonetheless
brought another urgent application, on 14 June 2005, this time for an order that
SGM and its directors be held in contempt of court. Prior to the hearing of that
application the directors all resigned as such. Hussain J, in the Johannesburg
High Court, on 15 May 2006, convicted SGM and the directors, and sentenced
SGM to pay a fine of R15 000 and the directors to pay fines of R15 000 each,
and failing payment to six months’ imprisonment each. It is against the order that
they were in contempt of court, and the sentences imposed, that the directors1
appeal to this court, leave having been given by Schwartzman J in the
Johannesburg High Court.

[4] The directors raise some 11 grounds of appeal against the judgment of
Hussain J. I shall not deal with them all in view of the finding which I make that

1 One of the directors, Mr Brett Kebble, died after having been found guilty of contempt of court
but before the appeal was noted.

the order of Goldstein J, requiring SGM to comply with the directives, was
incapable of implementation. However, a very brief history of the matter is
necessary.2

[5] The respondent mining companies in the first application owned land in
the KOSH area in the North West Province. SGM is on a higher level (upstream)
than are the other mines in the area. In a letter written by the department to SGM
on 13 April 2005, and in which the first directive is contained, the position is
explained as follows (in summary). In order to prevent pollution of ground and
surface water in the KOSH area, and to continue the safe operations of the
mines, underground water needs to be removed, collected and treated to an
acceptable level for use, or discharged in an environmentally acceptable fashion.
This must be done at the most beneficial place, before the water becomes
exposed to underground workings which may affect its quality. A number of
mines are affected, including SGM, DRD Gold Ltd, Anglo Gold Ashanti Limited
and Harmony Gold Mining Co Ltd.

[6] The KOSH Intermine Water Forum was established in April 2000 to find a
‘negotiated solution’ to the problem of pumping water from underground in the
most effective manner. SGM was a member of the forum. By April 2005 no
solution had yet been agreed. Hence the Regional Director, Free State, acting
under delegated authority from the Minister of Water Affairs and Forestry, issued
directives to the mining companies concerned under s 19(3) of the National
Water Act 36 of 1998.

[7] SGM, like the other companies, was ordered to:
1 ‘collect, remove and contain water arising in the KOSH basin at the most appropriate
location, treat it to standards as may be prescribed from time to time, or use or discharge
it in a legal manner’ . . . .

2 The background is discussed also in Harmony Gold Mining Co Ltd v Regional Director: Free
State, Department of Water Affairs and Forestry [2006] SCA 65 (RSA).

2 ‘ensure the continued operation and maintenance of all infrastructure associated with
any aspect of the management of the water found underground and, in this respect,
provide the Regional Director with a weekly report regarding the status of such
infrastructure, as well as the provisions made to ensure such continued operation and
maintenance . . . starting 22 April 2005’.
3 ‘To, before 1 May 2005, provide the Regional Director with the outcome of a
determination of your responsibilities with regard to the continued collection, removal,
containment, treatment, use and disposal of the water found underground in this area,
based on the following:
a Stilfontein Gold Mining Co historic contribution to carrying responsibilities relating to
the cost for the collection, removal, containment, treatment, use and disposal of such
waters; . . .
b the underground area exposed by your operations;
c the surface area covered by your operations;
d your collective earnings to date resulting from your mining activities in the area;
e . . .
f . . .
which determination must be submitted together with audited statements and
documentation by suitably qualified persons regarding these aspects.’
4 ‘To, before 1 June 2005, submit the outcome of an environmental legal compliance
audit conducted on your operations . . . .
5 To, before 1 July 2005, based on the outcome of the environmental legal compliance
audit, and following approval thereof by the Regional Director, either --
a apply for the  necessary authorisations required under Chapter 4 of the NWA for all
water uses . . .;  or
b provide satisfactory documented proof to the Regional Director that such provisions
are not applicable to your operations.’

[8] There followed other directives and an account of the consequences of
non-compliance. The directive of 13 April was followed by another, dated 15
April, purportedly clarifying the prior directive in regard to the management of
water found underground, but expressly not in substitution for it.

[9] The attorneys for SGM responded to the first directive on 14 April 2005,
pointing out that SGM had closed its mine in 1992 and that the pumping of
underground water had since then been undertaken by Hartebeesfontein Gold
Mining Co Ltd. They advised further that SGM was not in a financial position to
pump and extract underground water from its mine shafts, and that it was
accordingly impossible for SGM to comply with the directive or any court order
that might follow. They advised also that the shareholders and directors of SGM
were considering an application for its winding-up.

[10] There followed another letter from the Regional Director, dated 7 May
2005, which again explained the importance of preventing flooding of mine shafts
in the area and the dire environmental consequences if underground water were
to be contaminated. A third directive was thus issued in the letter, clarifying the
requirements relating to the extraction of underground water. The number of
litres per day to be extracted from each shaft before 30 June 2005 was specified.
And, most controversially, the directive stated:
‘For the interim period, starting from the date of this directive until 30 June 2005, ensure
that the cost for taking the measures under clause 2(b) (sc 2(a)), including the cost for
ensuring the continued operation and maintenance of all infrastructure associated with
any aspect of the management of this water found underground, is shared equally
between AngloGold Ashanti Limited, Harmony Gold Mining Company, Stilfontein Gold
Mining Company and DRD Gold Limited.’
Again, the implications of non-compliance, including liability to criminal charges
under the Act, were set out in full.

[11] On 18 May the Department applied on an urgent basis for an order that
SGM and Harmony comply with the three directives. Harmony had paid a
contribution to the costs referred to in the directive of 7 May under protest and
applied for leave to appeal against an order (dated 22 April 2005) that it comply
with the Regional Director’s directives. Goldstein J, who heard the urgent

application against SGM, had on the same day given Harmony leave to appeal
against that order to this court.3

[12] At the hearing of the application against SGM an affidavit (dated 13 May
2005) of one of the SGM directors, Mr G Miller, was handed to the court. It had
not been served on the Department. Miller stated that SGM was no longer
mining; that the one shaft that was still operative – Margaret Shaft – was being
pumped by Hartebeesfontein in accordance with an agreement; that any income
from the sale of water obtained was used to defray expenses, and that SGM was
unable to contribute to the costs of pumping.  Miller stated that if SGM were
ordered to contribute to the pumping cost of the KOSH region it would not be
able to comply with the order, and might be liquidated.

[13] Goldstein J was not impressed with the affidavit handed up. It did not
‘reveal what the assets and liabilities of Stilfontein are, and in my view nothing
said in this affidavit constitutes a defence to the claims made . . .’.  The learned
judge was willing to order SGM to comply with the directives, and did so with
minor changes made to accommodate Harmony and the possible success of its
appeal to this court. In effect, the court ordered SGM to comply with the three
directives issued.

[14] On 9 June SGM’s attorneys wrote to the State Attorney (in response to a
letter from it demanding compliance with the court order) explaining again SGM’s
inability to comply with the directives and thus the court order. But on 14 June
2005 the department brought yet another urgent application, this time against
SGM and the directors, for a finding that they were in contempt of the order made
by Goldstein J on 18 May.  On 17 June, before this application was heard, the
directors resigned their offices. The directors had not been parties to the
application for compliance with the directives, but were sued in this application as
the persons able to ensure compliance by SGM. Nothing, in my view, turns on

3 The appeal was dismissed: Harmony Gold above.

their resignation prior to the hearing of the application for an order that they were
in contempt of court.

[15] The application came before Hussain J on 24 June: he postponed the
hearing to 25 and 26 July, and also ordered that the directives be implemented in
the interim. As I have said, Hussain J found, almost a year later, that SGM and
the directors were in contempt of court. I shall not deal with his reasoning. Nor,
as I have said, shall I consider all the grounds of appeal. It should be noted,
however, that the contempt alleged was said to have been committed before 30
June 2005, the date given for compliance with the directives by the Department.
This is not the least curious feature of the matter.

[16] The basis upon which the directors argue that the application should have
failed is that the directives were incapable of implementation because they were
so vague. This is illustrated by one of the directors’ grounds of appeal: SGM was
ordered, in the third directive, to contribute to the costs of pumping water from
the shafts in the KOSH area. The directors contend that an order of contempt of
court cannot be granted where the judgment is one sounding in money – ad
pecuniam solvendam. Where money is payable pursuant to a judgment,
enforcement of the order is achieved through a writ of execution. Contempt
proceedings are therefore inappropriate. It is only where performance of an act is
ordered – ad factum praestandum – that conviction for contempt of court is
permitted as a means of enforcing performance (as well, of course, as a means
of punishing those who flout court orders).

[17] The Department contends, on the other hand, that the distinction is not
germane to the order granted. The relationship between the parties is not that of
debtor and creditor: the Department is not the judgment creditor. That is clearly
so. But it is not necessary even to deal with the distinction. The principal difficulty
with the directive in relation to the contribution to the costs of pumping water
(with which the court ordered compliance) is that the amount is not determined;

the person to whom payment is to be made is not known; and the date by which
payment is to be made is not determined. How were the directors to avoid being
in contempt of court, and when did their conduct amount to contempt, bearing in
mind that SGM had until 30 June 2005 to comply with the third directive?
Moreover, no explanation was proffered as to why the application for an order
that they were in contempt was brought before performance was due.

[18] The response of the Department is that the other mining companies –
respondents before Goldstein J – had not had similar doubts: they had made
contributions to the costs of pumping. That does not tell us, however, that they
were under an obligation in terms of a court order to make payment, nor to whom
it should be made. Counsel for the Department was unable to assist the court in
this regard.

[19] Another directive that the directors complain is unintelligible, and
incapable of implementation, relates to the pumping of water, and the
maintenance of infrastructure for the management of underground water, in the
entire KOSH basin, both of which are largely beyond the control of SGM.
Similarly, the requirement that SGM provide the Regional Director with ‘the
outcome of a determination’ on its responsibilities in relation to water treatment in
the entire KOSH basin is both unclear and  similarly largely beyond the control of
SGM.

[20] Moreover, the Department has failed to respond to the fact that the
company secretary to SGM, in an affidavit in the contempt application, pointed
out that SGM was no longer functioning, no longer had any directors, and was
unable to implement even those parts of the directive that were clear. Mr Roger
Kebble, one of the directors, in his answering affidavit, contended that the
directors had been forced to resign because the directive was incapable of
implementation, and if a contribution to costs were to be made SGM’s ability to
pay other amounts required for the rehabilitation of the environment would be

jeopardized.  All of this had been drawn to the attention of the Department
previously. The court order requiring compliance with the directives was thus not
wholly ignored.

[21] In my view, the directors’ argument that the order, in the form in which it
was made, was so lacking in clarity that it was incapable of enforcement, is
correct. SGM could not have known precisely what steps it should have taken to
comply. And the directive to contribute to the costs of pumping water was
imprecise in the respects discussed above. While the directors, before they
resigned, undoubtedly should have been more assiduous in seeking clarity – in
particular in regard to SGM’s contribution to the costs of pumping – they did not
simply flout the order. They advised the Department, through their attorneys and
the company secretaries, that they could not comply.

[22] However, given my conclusion that the order was so unclear that it could
not be implemented, it is not necessary to determine whether the directors
deliberately or recklessly flouted it. Nor is there any purpose in labelling their
conduct as reckless or contemptible: irresponsible conduct – if that is what their
resignations as directors amount to – is not necessarily contemptible and in this
case is not contemptuous.

[23] An order that a person is in contempt of court, which carries with it criminal
sanctions, should be made only where the court order allegedly flouted is clear
and capable of enforcement. Where that is not so a court cannot find that a party
has deliberately not complied with the order. The order made by Goldstein J that
SGM comply with the directives of the Department was unclear because the
directives themselves were unintelligible in several respects and to some extent
also incapable of implementation. There was not, in the circumstances, any wilful
failure to comply with the court order.  The appeal must thus succeed.

[24] The appeal is upheld with costs, including those of two counsel. The order
of the court below is altered to read:
‘The application is dismissed with costs.’

C H Lewis
Judge of Appeal
Concur:
Harms ADP
Van Heerden JA
Jafta JA
Kgomo AJA
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

MEDIA SUMMARY – JUDGMENT DELIVERED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL

20 September 2007

STATUS: Immediate

Kebble v Minister of Water Affairs [2007] SCA 111 (RSA)

Please note that the media summary is intended for the benefit of the media
and does not form part of the judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeal
The Supreme Court of Appeal today held that Mr Roger Kebble and other
former directors of Stilfontein Gold Mining Co Ltd were not guilty of contempt
of court when they failed to comply with an order of the Johannesburg High
Court which required the company to comply with various directives issued by
the Department of Water Affairs in 2005. The directives required that the
company (and a number of other mining companies in the area in which it
operated) pump water from particular mine shafts in order to prevent flooding
and pollution. One directive also required the company to contribute to the
costs of pumping but did not specify to whom payment was to be made, how
much was to be paid or when payment had to be made.

When the company failed to comply with the court order the Department
sought an order that the former directors be held in contempt of court. The
directors of the company resigned before the application was heard. The
Johannesburg High Court found that the directors had been in contempt of
court and sentenced them to fines, failing which imprisonment.

The Supreme Court of Appeal held, however, that the directives issued by the
Department were incapable of enforcement: they were vague, in parts
unintelligible, and largely beyond the control of the company. The court order
requiring compliance with the directives was thus also incapable of
enforcement and the directors were accordingly not in contempt of court. The
appeal against the decision of the high court thus succeeded.