IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA 
JUDGMENT 
 
CASE NO: 809/2013 
Not Reportable 
In the matter between: 
EYE OF AFRICA DEVELOPMENTS (PROPRIETARY) LIMITED      	     Appellant and 
SHEAR, CAROLINE NICOLA 	 	 	 	  	 	 First Respondent 
THE MINISTER OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL 
AFFAIRS  	 	 	 	 	 	 	               Second Respondent 
THE REGIONAL HEAD, GAUTENG REGION DEPARTMENT 
 OF WATER AFFAIRS AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS  	Third Respondent 
THE DEPARTMENT OF WATER AFFAIRS AND ENVIRONMENTAL 
AFFAIRS 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	          Fourth Respondent 
L J LEKALE N.O.  	 	 	 	 	 	 	Fifth Respondent 
Neutral Citation: 	Eye of Africa Developments v Shear and others (809/2013) [2014] ZASCA 100 (19 August 2014). 	
Coram: 		Navsa ADP, Tshiqi, Swain and Mbha JJA, Dambuza AJA 	
Heard: 	 	19 August 2014 	
Delivered: 	 	19 August 2014 	
Summary: 		S 21A of the Supreme Court Act 59 of 1959 – appeal dismissed 	
on the basis that an order will have no practical effect or result.  
 
______________________________________________________________________ 
ORDER 
______________________________________________________________________ 
 
On appeal from: The South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg (Windell AJ sitting as court of first instance). 
 
The following order is made: 
 
1.	The appeal is dismissed on the basis of s 21A of the Supreme Court Act 59 of 
1959, in that the judgment or order sought will have no practical effect. 
2.	The appellant is to pay the respondent’s costs, including the costs of two 
counsel.  ______________________________________________________________________ 
 
JUDGMENT 
______________________________________________________________________ The Court: 
[1]	We have taken into account the admission on behalf of counsel for the appellant that there was no longer any draw-down on underground water as there was presently sufficient grey-water to irrigate the golf-course and the concession that the environmental authorisation for the establishment of the golf-course which restricted irrigation of the golf-course to grey-water produced on the residential estate remained in stead in terms of the judgment of this court in Eye of Africa Developments v Shear 2012 (2) SA 186 (SCA). In light of this counsel for the appellant was constrained to concede that the appeal is liable to be dismissed on the basis of s 21A of the Supreme Court Act 59 of 1959, in that any judgment or order will have no practical effect or result. This, of course, has as a result that the order of the high court remains extant. 
 
[2]	The concession was only made at the commencement of proceedings before us and after questions were put to the counsel for the appellant. The issues raised in the heads of argument were involved and in our view justifies the costs of two counsel.  
 
[3]	The following order is made: 
1.	The appeal is dismissed on the basis of s 21A of the Supreme Court Act 59 of 1959, in that the judgment or order sought will have no practical effect. 
2.	The appellant is to pay the respondent’s costs, including the costs of two counsel.  

________________________ 
MS NAVSA 
ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 

________________________ 
Z L L TSHIQI 
JUDGE OF APPEAL 

________________________ 
K G B SWAIN 
JUDGE OF APPEAL 

_______________________ 
B H MBHA  
JUDGE OF APPEAL 

______________________ 
N DAMBUZA 
ACTING JUDGE OF APPEAL  

APPEARANCES: 
 
FOR APPELLANT: 	 	 	Adv. A P Bruwer 
 	 	 	 	 	Instructed by: 
 	 	 	 	 	Du Plessis De Heus & Van Wyk, Johannesburg 
 	 	 	 	 	Symington & De Kok, Bloemfontein 
 
FOR FIRST RESPONDENT: 	 	Adv. G I Hulley (with him K Millard) 
 	 	 	 	 	Instructed by: 
 	 	 	 	 	McKenzie, Van der Merwe and Willemse, Kempton Park 
 	 	 	 	 	Jordaan Rijkheer and Partners, Bloemfontein