Primary briefing · Gazette
high impact 55179 · 7807 · 12 August 2026
24 Waste Streams Excluded from 'Waste' Definition for Beneficial Reuse across Mining, Agriculture, and Construction
Effective from
12 Aug 2026
Government Notice 7807 publishes the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment's decisions approving 24 applications to exclude specific waste streams from the definition of 'waste' under the NEM: Waste Act regulations, permitting their beneficial reuse. Approved waste streams include mining waste rock (Samancor Chrome), chicken broiler litter (Astral Operations), boiler ash, filter cake, dam sludge, and industrial by-products from facilities operated by Coca-Cola Beverages SA, Tongaat Hulett, Sibanye Stillwater, Sappi, and others. Approved reuse purposes span construction aggregates, brick-making, soil conditioning, agricultural fertilisation, and road maintenance. Generators whose waste streams are excluded must comply with risk management plans based on risk assessments and submit annual reports to the Department under regulation 10 of the Regulations.
Who is affected
Mining companies (including Samancor Chrome, Sibanye Stillwater)Food and beverage manufacturers (including Coca-Cola Beverages SA, Astral Operations)Sugar mills (including Tongaat Hulett)Pulp and paper producers (including Sappi)Construction companies using recycled aggregatesAgricultural operations receiving composted waste for fertilisationEnvironmental compliance advisors and waste management practitioners What this means for practitioners
Confirm whether your client or facility is named in the 24 approved exclusions and identify the specific waste stream and permitted beneficial use
Ensure risk management plans based on risk assessments are in place for each excluded waste stream
Establish annual reporting processes to the Department as required under regulation 10 of the Regulations
Advise clients with similar waste streams that the regulatory pathway for exclusion applications is active and being used across sectors
Primary briefing · Judgment
high impact High Court (Mpumalanga Division, Middelburg) · 12 August 2026
Verwey N.O and Others v EMFN Projects (Pty) Ltd and Another
Farm owners brought an urgent application for spoliatory and vindicatory relief after a municipality and its contractor entered their farms without consent to erect toilets for long-standing ESTA occupiers. The occupiers were not joined to the proceedings.
The court held: The court dismissed the application. It held that the occupiers — not the owners — were in peaceful possession of the portions where the toilets were being built, so no unlawful deprivation of the owners' possession occurred. Applying the Constitutional Court's Daniels v Scribante principle, the court confirmed that owner consent is not a prerequisite for improvements serving occupiers' constitutional right to human dignity. The municipality bears a constitutional duty to provide basic sanitation. However, meaningful engagement between the parties on implementation is required. The court upheld the non-joinder point in limine but proceeded to determine the merits in the interest of justice.
Legal impact: Confirms and applies Daniels v Scribante at High Court level in a novel factual setting where the municipality — rather than the occupier — is the actor entering private land. This reshapes the practical balance of rights on occupied agricultural land: farm owners cannot use refusal of consent to block municipal delivery of basic services to ESTA occupiers. The meaningful engagement requirement remains the key procedural safeguard for owners.
Who is affected
Farm owners and agricultural landowners with ESTA occupiersMunicipalities and local authorities responsible for sanitation deliveryESTA occupiers on private farmlandProperty law and land tenure practitionersConstruction contractors engaged by municipalities for rural infrastructure What this means for practitioners
Advise farm-owner clients that refusal of consent alone will not prevent municipal entry to install basic services for ESTA occupiers
Counsel municipal clients that entry is permissible but meaningful engagement with owners on implementation logistics (timing, movement, building plans) is required by the order
Note the non-joinder finding: ESTA occupiers must be joined in proceedings affecting their rights on occupied land
Monitor for any appeal — the judgment is immediately operative but is at High Court level