Afriblaze Leisure (Pty) Ltd and Others v Commission on Restitution of Land Rights and Others (LCC16/2007) [2008] ZALCC 4; [2010] 3 All SA 559 (LCC) (22 May 2008)

Afriblaze Leisure (Pty) Ltd and Others v Commission on Restitution of Land Rights and Others (LCC16/2007) [2008] ZALCC 4; [2010] 3 All SA 559 (LCC) (22 May 2008)

The court found that the dispute between the applicants and the respondents was primarily legal in nature and not amenable to mediation, as both parties were entrenched in their positions regarding the validity of the claim. The investigation of the claim had been completed, and the respondents had failed to act expeditiously or efficiently in resolving or referring the claim, despite the passage of significant time since its lodgement and gazetting. Section 13 of the Restitution Act does not impose a mandatory obligation to mediate, but rather grants a discretion to the Commissioner. The lack of progress and unwillingness of the parties to mediate justified the referral of the claim to...

Citation
[2008] ZALCC 4
Parties
Applicant: Afriblaze Leisure (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Superstrike Investments 123 (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Leopard Ranch (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Cosico Property; Applicant: Nkonka Bush Lodge; Applicant: Melkrivier (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Hendrik van Heerden; Applicant: Kgama Eco Ranch (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Willo Wisp Cottage (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Carol Anne van der Merwe; Applicant: George Claude Meyer; Applicant: Waterberg Land Claims Association; Respondent: Commission on Restitution of Land Rights; Respondent: Regional Land Claims Commissioner for the Limpopo Province; Respondent: Hendrik Motsegoa Lesiba (on behalf of the Matabane Community); Respondent: Minister of Land Affairs
Court
Land Claims Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 May 2008
Case Number
LCC16/2007
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Application for Referral of Land Claim to Court Under Section 14 of the Restitution Act
Outcome
Application granted. The respondents are ordered to issue a certificate of unresolved claim and refer the matter to the Land Claims Court. Costs awarded against the first and second respondents.
Judges
Y.S. Meer
Legal Topics
Restitution of Land Rights Act, Referral to Land Claims Court, Mediation Discretion, Certificate of Unresolved Claim, Costs in Land Claims
Land and Property Administrative Law Restitution of Land Rights Act Referral to Land Claims Court Mediation Discretion Certificate of Unresolved Claim Costs in Land Claims

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Afriblaze Leisure (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Superstrike Investments 123 (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Leopard Ranch (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Cosico Property

Applicant

Nkonka Bush Lodge

Applicant

Melkrivier (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Hendrik van Heerden

Applicant

Kgama Eco Ranch (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Willo Wisp Cottage (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Carol Anne van der Merwe

Applicant

George Claude Meyer

Applicant

Waterberg Land Claims Association

Applicant

Commission on Restitution of Land Rights

Respondent

Regional Land Claims Commissioner for the Limpopo Province

Respondent

Hendrik Motsegoa Lesiba (on behalf of the Matabane Community)

Respondent

Minister of Land Affairs

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Application for Referral of Land Claim to Court Under Section 14 of the Restitution Act

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Commission on Restitution of Land Rights and the Regional Land Claims Commissioner are obliged to issue a certificate under section 14 of the Restitution of Land Rights Act declaring the claim unresolved.
  2. 2 Whether the claim lodged by the Matabane Community should be referred to the Land Claims Court for adjudication.
  3. 3 Whether mediation is a mandatory prerequisite before referral to court under section 14.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the dispute between the applicants and the respondents was primarily legal in nature and not amenable to mediation, as both parties were entrenched in their positions regarding the validity of the claim. The investigation of the claim had been completed, and the respondents had failed to act expeditiously or efficiently in resolving or referring the claim, despite the passage of significant time since its lodgement and gazetting. Section 13 of the Restitution Act does not impose a mandatory obligation to mediate, but rather grants a discretion to the Commissioner. The lack of progress and unwillingness of the parties to mediate justified the referral of the claim to...

Court Disposition

Application granted. The respondents are ordered to issue a certificate of unresolved claim and refer the matter to the Land Claims Court. Costs awarded against the first and second respondents.

Orders

  • The first and second respondents are directed to issue a certificate in terms of section 14 of the Restitution of Land Rights Act No 22 of 1994 in respect of the claim lodged by the third respondent on behalf of the Matabane Community.
  • The first and second respondents are ordered to refer the claim by the third respondent, after issuing the certificate, to the Land Claims Court for adjudication in terms of section 14 of the Restitution of Land Rights Act No 22 of 1994, within 30 days of the date of this order.