The South African Constitutional Court recently canceled a planned oil exploration project by Shell and its local partner, Impact Africa, citing insufficient consultation with local communities and a failure to consider environmental and climate impacts. This decision could set a significant legal precedent, requiring the government to take climate and environmental consequences into account when approving major development projects. The ruling highlights the growing role of constitutional law in addressing climate change and environmental justice. The planned exploration involved seismic studies off the Wild Coast, an ecologically rich region in the Eastern Cape province. These studies use powerful sound waves to map underground rock formations, but they can produce intense underwater noise that may harm marine life. The area is home to indigenous communities with deep cultural and economic ties to the ocean, raising concerns about the potential damage to both the environment and local livelihoods. The Constitutional Court ruled that the exploration rights should be canceled due to serious flaws in the government's approval process. The court found that the authorities had not adequately consulted the affected communities or considered the environmental and climate impacts of the project. As a result, Shell and Impact Africa can no longer use these rights to explore for oil and gas in the region. This decision concludes a long-running legal battle that began in 2021. Six communities, environmental groups, and NGOs challenged the project in lower courts, arguing that their voices had not been heard. The case eventually reached the Constitutional Court, South Africa's highest legal authority, and is considered the first climate-related case heard at that level. A central issue was whether the government had properly considered the climate impacts of the project. The ruling marks a major step forward in climate justice, emphasizing that climate change affects people unequally and that those who benefit from harmful activities are not always the ones who bear the costs. The court noted that climate change has moved from the periphery to the "heart of legal responsibility." Five key dimensions of climate justice emerged from the decision: procedural justice (who has a say?), recognition (which identities and relationships with nature matter?), distributive justice (who benefits and who suffers?), intergenerational justice (what decisions mean for future generations), and justice for non-humans (including ecosystems and species). The ruling reinforces the importance of environmental protection in South African law, particularly Article 24 of the Constitution, which guarantees everyone the right to an environment that does not harm their health or well-being. The court emphasized that environmental protection cannot be treated as secondary to economic development. Decisions about major projects must consider both the benefits and the potential harm to people and the environment, ensuring fairness for both current and future generations. The court also highlighted the international context of climate law, noting that climate change is a global issue with shared but unequal consequences. It referenced recent advisory opinions from international courts, which stress that governments have a legal duty to prevent serious environmental damage. The ruling links South African constitutional law to a growing body of international climate law focused on human rights, justice, and legal responsibility. While the ruling does not ban all fossil fuel exploration, it requires companies to properly consult affected communities and comply with environmental regulations. Shell and Impact Africa had already invested over 1 billion rand in the project, but the court emphasized that financial investment does not override constitutional rights. The decision provides a stronger legal foundation for communities and other rights holders to demand that climate change, cultural heritage, and environmental justice be taken seriously in future development decisions.