Constitutional Court ends Shell's Wild Coast oil search — for good
Sustaining the Wild Coast NPC and Others v Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy and Others; Natural Justice and Another v Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy and Others — Constitutional Court · (CCT 194/24; CCT 196/24) [2026] ZACC 33
A note on our sourcing
Verified directly from the Constitutional Court's own judgment PDF (concourt.org.za collections repository) — case numbers, coram, dates, order and the s172(1)(b)/s24/MPRDA legal basis are drawn from the judgment text itself, not secondary reporting. SAFLII's own case page blocks automated fetching, so it's cited here as the canonical public record location rather than the page actually read.
What happened
Shell and Impact Africa held an exploration right to run seismic surveys for oil and gas off the Wild Coast. The High Court set that right aside for inadequate consultation with affected coastal communities and inadequate consideration of environmental and climate impacts. The Supreme Court of Appeal agreed the decision was flawed but suspended the effect of setting it aside, pending yet another renewal application by Shell. The Constitutional Court has now overturned that suspension: the exploration right and its renewals stay set aside, full stop.
Why it made the news
Widely reported as South Africa's first climate-impact case to reach the Constitutional Court, and a decisive win for Wild Coast communities — including Sustaining the Wild Coast, Amadiba Traditional Community members, and the Dwesa-Cwebe Communal Property Association — who had fought the seismic survey for years.
For lawyers & law students
The Court's real holding is about remedy, not just environmental law: under s172(1)(b) of the Constitution, a court crafting a 'just and equitable' remedy after finding an administrative decision unlawful has a true discretion, but that discretion isn't unlimited — the majority (Kollapen J, Maya CJ, Mathopo J, Mhlantla J, Musi AJ, Theron J and Tshiqi J concurring) held the SCA's grounds for interfering with the High Court's finality didn't meet the bar for appellate interference with a discretionary remedy. Practically: once a court sets aside a decision for the kind of MPRDA s79–81 defects at issue here (inadequate public participation, failure to apply the precautionary principle), don't assume a 'suspend pending another application' half-measure is available on appeal — Rogers J dissented on exactly this point (paras 157–235), so the reasoning is worth reading closely for anyone advising on PAJA-adjacent review remedies.
For citizens
Shell's search for oil and gas off the Wild Coast is over — not paused, over. The Constitutional Court agreed with coastal communities that they were never properly consulted and that the risks to the coastline weren't properly weighed before the right was granted in the first place.
Get new Case Watch posts by email
No account needed — just new legal content, when there’s something worth reading.