In a critical victory for environmental accountability and agricultural rights, the Gauteng High Court has ruled in favour of the plaintiffs in Barnard and Rontgen v Minister of Environmental Affairs and Others (Case No. 9952/2019), holding the State liable for widespread crop damage caused by the negligent application of a toxic herbicide.
Pretoria, July 2025

Background Link to heading

In 2015, the plaintiffs joined the State’s Working for Water (WfW) programme, which aimed to eradicate invasive plant species. While the initial treatment was uneventful, a 2016 follow-up saw the application of Kaput 100 Gel, a herbicide containing picloram, directly into the irrigation catchment area and near dams used to water sensitive tobacco crops.

The outcome was catastrophic: the contaminated water led to the destruction of commercial tobacco fields, with expert evidence confirming the presence of picloram in the dams and its known high toxicity to broadleaf crops.

The Judgment Link to heading

Acting Judge Nicholson delivered a comprehensive ruling, rejecting the State’s attempts to evade liability by hiding behind a lapsed contract and blaming an “independent contractor.”

Key findings included: Link to heading

  • The landowner agreement had lapsed and was thus legally void at the time of the 2016 treatment.
  • The application of Kaput 100 Gel was off-label, in contravention of the Fertilizers Act, NEMA, and Section 24 of the Constitution.
  • Neither the contractor (Ms Lehutjo) nor her team were registered Pest Control Operators (PCOs) as required by law.
  • The State’s representative, Mr Malemela, directly instructed the use of the herbicide and failed to read or apply label restrictions.
  • There was no valid consent for the follow-up treatment, and no effort to notify the landowner of the new herbicide use.
  • The defendant failed to rehabilitate the damage or issue a directive to the contractor.

The court found this conduct to be grossly negligent and unlawful, stating:

“The off-label use of the herbicide Kaput 100 Gel… is a criminal offence… The Defendant cannot contract out of the statutory obligations imposed by the NEMA, the National Water Act, and related legislation.”

The court also rejected any argument of contributory negligence, noting that the plaintiffs could not have foreseen the criminal misuse of herbicide on their farm.

This ruling is a precedent-setting judgment that:

  • Reinforces environmental justice and the constitutional right to a safe environment.
  • Clarifies the State’s non-delegable duty of care when deploying workers or contractors in environmental programmes.
  • Demands regulatory compliance in all pesticide and herbicide applications on private property.

The matter will now proceed to a separate hearing to determine the quantum of damages, which may include long-term remediation costs and loss of income.

This landmark outcome was achieved through the exceptional representation of Advocate Samantha Jane Martin of Maisels Chambers 3, with Laubscher Attorneys acting as attorneys of record. Advocate Martin’s diligent handling of expert testimony and her incisive unpacking of administrative and environmental law played a pivotal role in holding the State accountable.

Bottom Line Link to heading

The judgment is a warning to all government entities: accountability cannot be outsourced, and the misuse of chemicals in sensitive ecosystems has both legal and ethical consequences.