South Africa’s Supreme Court of Appeal has rejected the government’s challenge to a ruling that halted plans for 1,500 megawatts of new coal-fired power, leaving the earlier decision in force. The case, known as #CancelCoal, was brought by a coalition of environmental groups that argued the new capacity violates children’s constitutional right to a healthy environment. South Africa already has the largest coal-fired power fleet in Africa, so the outcome carries weight beyond a single project. ([1])
Health costs behind the courtroom fight
The plaintiffs framed the dispute around health, not only energy supply. Already, air pollution from coal-fired power plants kills more than 2,200 South Africans each year and “causes thousands of cases of bronchitis and asthma,” according to a statement from the Centre for Environmental Rights. For families living with those risks, the question before the courts was whether the state should add more coal capacity at all.
The High Court sided with the plaintiffs. A previous High Court judgment ruled against the plan “on the basis that it violates the right to an environment not harmful to health and well-being.” The judge also found the government’s record lacking, describing it as “ominously silent on any considerations given to the effect that the additional 1 500 MW new coal-fired power will have on the environment and the health of the nation, in particular that of children”. The court also rejected the grid stability argument as a sufficient reason to override those constitutional rights.
How the case reached the appeals court
The dispute began with the 2019 Integrated Resource Plan, which included the 1,500 MW. A 2024 ruling halted the plans, and the court declared the relevant decisions unconstitutional, unlawful and invalid and set them aside. The Minister of Electricity and Energy then appealed, arguing that the additional capacity was needed to secure the country’s energy supply.
The appeal was heard in Bloemfontein on 19 August 2026. On 30 October 2026, the Supreme Court of Appeal handed down judgment in the youth-led #CancelCoal case, and it dismissed the Minister’s appeal with costs. The appeals court’s reasoning turned on a significant change in policy. Because the government had since published a new plan, the court found that there was no live issue before the Court and any ruling that the court would make would have no practical legal effect.
What the ruling settles, and what remains open
The decision does not close the door on every future coal project. Mongabay reported that the ruling does not mean a definitive end to new coal as part of energy security policy, but it does mean the government carries a higher standard to justify choosing coal. The main points readers should track are these:
- The 2025 Integrated Resource Plan, gazetted in October 2025, makes no provision for new coal-fired generation.
- The obligation to weigh the effects on children and youth still applies, since the legal obligation on government and regulatory decision-makers when developing future energy and environmental policies to consider children and youth still stands.
- The Minister may take the matter further, as the Minister of Electricity and Energy may appeal the Supreme Court of Appeal’s decision to South Africa‘s Constitutional Court. ([2])
The court did not rule on the full range of substantive arguments, so the scope of the children’s-rights principle will likely be tested in later decisions. For now, the case has shifted how energy planners in South Africa must justify coal, and the health data that shaped the plaintiffs’ argument will remain central to any future debate.
