South Africa’s Western Cape High Court has granted the State and Shell limited leave to appeal a previous judgment that invalidated environmental authorization for offshore drilling in Block 5/6/7, a move that reinforces the judiciary’s role in balancing extractive ambitions with climate accountability. In a ruling delivered on November 12, 2025, Judge Nobahle Mangcu-Lockwood allowed an appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) on only two specific grounds: whether regulators must consider “full lifecycle” climate impacts during exploration and if transboundary environmental risks must be assessed. The court’s refusal to grant leave on other procedural flaws effectively upholds the invalidity of the current permit, requiring TotalEnergies and Shell to halt exploration activities until a comprehensive new environmental assessment is completed.
The legal deadlock in Block 5/6/7, situated approximately 60 kilometers off Cape Point, serves as a high-stakes test for South Africa’s regulatory framework under the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) and the Integrated Coastal Management Act (ICMA). For Shell—which is seeking to take over the operatorship from TotalEnergies following the latter’s signaled exit from several South African offshore blocks, the ruling represents a significant bottleneck in a region estimated to hold billions of dollars in potential hydrocarbons. However, for the small-scale fishing communities and civil society groups led by The Green Connection and Natural Justice, the decision is an affirmation that socio-economic protections and public participation cannot be bypassed to accelerate energy developments.
At the core of the upcoming SCA appeal is a defining question for Africa’s energy transition: the legal link between exploration and production. The High Court previously rejected industry arguments that climate impacts, specifically emissions from burning discovered resources, should be deferred until a later production phase. The court held that because these phases are inextricably linked, ignoring downstream emissions during the exploration stage creates an asymmetrical and legally deficient assessment of a project’s “need and desirability.” This precedent, if upheld by the SCA, would compel energy majors across the continent to account for the full carbon footprint of their African portfolios at a much earlier stage, potentially altering the internal rate of return (IRR) models for frontier exploration.
The ruling also intensifies the focus on transboundary governance, a critical issue for shared marine ecosystems like the Orange Basin. By confirming that authorities must assess the harm of a potential oil spill beyond South Africa’s borders, specifically affecting Namibian waters—the court has integrated customary international law into domestic administrative processes. This shift carries practical implications for regional infrastructure and public finances, as neighboring states may now have stronger legal standing to demand joint contingency planning or indemnity before drilling commences in shared maritime zones.
Beyond the legal technicalities, the case highlights a growing institutional friction between South Africa’s Department of Minerals and Petroleum Resources, which views offshore gas as a bridge to industrial stability, and a judiciary increasingly focused on constitutional environmental rights. According to legal analysts, the refusal to grant leave on grounds of public participation and socio-economic impacts means that the original findings of “procedural unfairness”—specifically the withholding of oil spill contingency plans from the public—now stand as binding precedent. This ensures that transparency and community engagement will remain central to any future attempts to unlock the South-West Coast’s energy potential.
Engage with us on LinkedIn: Africa Sustainability Matters
