- The court allowed the NSPCA and EMS Foundation to intervene as respondents in the lion bone quota case.
- The court found both organisations have a direct and substantial interest in the outcome of the review.
- The application by Ban Animal Trading to join as a friend of the court was refused.
The High Court in Pretoria has ruled that two major animal welfare organisations may formally join a legal challenge over the government’s failure to set export quotas for lion bones and related products, while a third organisation was denied entry into the proceedings.
Judge E van der Schyff dealt with three separate applications brought by the National Council of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (NSPCA), the EMS Foundation, and Ban Animal Trading NPC. All three sought to participate in an ongoing case brought by the South African Predator Association and several individuals against the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment.
At the centre of the dispute is the minister’s alleged failure to determine annual export quotas for lion bones and derivatives from captive breeding facilities. The predator association argues that this failure is unlawful and wants the court to compel the minister to make a decision.
Legal interests of animal welfare organisations
The NSPCA and the EMS Foundation, both long-time advocates for animal welfare and conservation, have a history of involvement in litigation related to captive lion breeding and trade. They argued that the outcome of this case could directly impact their efforts and the broader protection of animals.
Judge Van der Schyff made it clear that the case before her was not about whether lion bone exports should be allowed, but rather whether the minister is legally obliged to decide on quotas.
The court emphasised this distinction. It said, “The relief sought is aimed at compelling a decision, not a particular decision.” The judgment further clarified, “It does not dictate the outcome, content or substance of the Minister’s decision.”
The court reaffirmed that a party seeking to intervene must show a direct and substantial interest in the case. This means the outcome of the litigation must have the potential to affect that party’s rights.
Requirements for intervention
Importantly, the court noted that applicants do not need to prove they will win the main case at this stage. The requirement is simply to show that their arguments raise issues worth considering.
The NSPCA’s position was even more compelling. The organisation previously played a pivotal role in litigation that led to earlier lion bone quotas being set aside, a history that directly links it to the current dispute.
Ban Animal Trading’s bid to join as a friend of the court was unsuccessful because its arguments were not closely linked to the specific legal questions before the court.
Implications of the court’s ruling
The broader legal challenge over lion bone export quotas will now proceed with the participation of the two animal welfare bodies, setting the stage for a significant ruling on the government’s responsibilities in regulating the wildlife trade.
The court granted the NSPCA and EMS Foundation permission to intervene as respondents and allowed them to file further papers in the case. Their existing affidavits will stand as their answering papers in the main proceedings. Ban Animal Trading’s application was refused, with each party ordered to pay its own costs.
Get your news on the go. Clickhere to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
