Waste activities schedule repealed and replaced; heirs' PIE occupation right survives unauthorised estate transfer

Government Notice 7461 proposes to repeal and replace the full schedule of listed waste management activities under the National Environmental Management: Waste Act 59 of 2008 (originally GN R.921 of 29 November 2013 and all amendments). The replacement schedule reorganises activities into Categories A and B (requiring a waste management licence via basic assessment) and a new Category C (requiring compliance with prescribed norms and standards instead of a licence), with revised thresholds for storage, recycling, recovery, treatment and disposal of general and hazardous waste. Critical transitional provisions apply: pending licence applications for activities no longer listed in Categories A or B but now in Category C will be deemed withdrawn, and persons lawfully conducting reclassified activities may continue under existing licences until expiry, after which they must comply with Category C requirements. Written representations or objections must be submitted within 60 days of publication.

The appellants purchased residential property that had formed part of a deceased estate administered under section 18(3) of the Administration of Estates Act. The property was transferred to them without the Master's consent. The respondents — intestate heirs of the deceased — had been in occupation of the property for years. The appellants sought their eviction under the PIE Act.

The court held: The appeal was dismissed with costs on Scale B. The court held that a Master's representative appointed under section 18(3) has no statutory power to alienate immovable property without the Master's express consent and directions. Because the property was alienated without that consent, the heirs' occupation remained lawful — their vested inheritance rights constituted 'any other right in law' to occupy under PIE. Even on the alternative basis that occupation was unlawful, the court found this was a rare case where it was not just and equitable to grant eviction, given the respondents' vulnerability, long occupation, vested inheritance rights, and the suspect circumstances of the alienation. The appellants' remedy lay against those responsible for the unauthorised transfer, not against the occupying heirs.

Legal impact: This judgment develops PIE and estate administration law in several respects. It establishes that intestate heirs in occupation of section 18(3) estate property may hold a 'right in law' to occupy under PIE, distinguishing the simplified section 18(3) regime from formal executorship and finding heirs have a more direct entitlement to remain in occupation. It confirms that a Master's representative under section 18(3) acts wholly under the Master's direction and cannot dispose of immovable property without express consent. It also distinguishes the SCA's Changing Tides decision, identifying rare circumstances where eviction from private land may be refused outright. This creates real conveyancing risk: purchasers of deceased estate property transferred without the Master's consent may find themselves unable to evict occupying heirs.