Baphiring Community and Others v Tshwaranani Projects CC and Others (806/12) [2013] ZASCA 99; [2013] 4 All SA 292 (SCA); 2014 (1) SA 330 (SCA) (6 September 2013)

Baphiring Community and Others v Tshwaranani Projects CC and Others (806/12) [2013] ZASCA 99; [2013] 4 All SA 292 (SCA); 2014 (1) SA 330 (SCA) (6 September 2013)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Land Claims Court erred in making a non-restoration order without sufficient evidence from the state regarding the feasibility of restoring the land to the Baphiring Community. The state failed to conduct a proper feasibility study and did not provide material evidence on critical factors such as the cost of expropriation, institutional and financial support, social disruption, and the impact on current occupants. This omission constituted a material irregularity that vitiated the non-restoration order. The matter was remitted to the Land Claims Court to consider and determine anew the feasibility of restoration, with specific directions to...

Citation
[2013] ZASCA 99
Parties
Appellant: The Baphiring Community; Appellant: Regional Land Claims Commissioner: Gauteng and North West Provinces; Appellant: Minister for Rural Development and Land Reform; Respondent: Tshwaranani Projects CC; Respondent: Jan Hendrik Liebenberg; Respondent: Wessels Cornelius Cronjé Oosthuizen; Respondent: Sarel Johannes Buitendag; Respondent: Francois Johannes Joubert; Respondent: Wouter Bekker; Respondent: Hendrik Baltes Niemand; Respondent: Antoinette Prinsloo; Respondent: Minister for Public Works; Respondent: Minister for Minerals and Energy Affairs; Respondent: Registrar of Deeds, Pretoria; Respondent: Land Agricultural Bank of South Africa; Respondent: First National Bank of South Africa Ltd; Respondent: J C Liebenberg; Respondent: H Kruger; Respondent: Senwes Limited; Respondent: N W K Limited; Respondent: P J Liebenberg; Respondent: J C C Cilliers
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 September 2013
Case Number
806/12
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Land Claims Court
Outcome
Appeal upheld; order of the Land Claims Court set aside; matter remitted for reconsideration of feasibility of restoration.
Judges
Cachalia, Shongwe, Majiedt, Van der Merwe, Mbha
Legal Topics
Restitution of Land Rights Act, Feasibility of Restoration, Just and Equitable Compensation, Public Interest, State Obligation, Material Irregularity
Land and Property Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Restitution of Land Rights Act Feasibility of Restoration Just and Equitable Compensation Public Interest State Obligation +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Baphiring Community

Appellant

Regional Land Claims Commissioner: Gauteng and North West Provinces

Appellant

Minister for Rural Development and Land Reform

Appellant

Tshwaranani Projects CC

Respondent

Jan Hendrik Liebenberg

Respondent

Wessels Cornelius Cronjé Oosthuizen

Respondent

Sarel Johannes Buitendag

Respondent

Francois Johannes Joubert

Respondent

Wouter Bekker

Respondent

Hendrik Baltes Niemand

Respondent

Antoinette Prinsloo

Respondent

Minister for Public Works

Respondent

Minister for Minerals and Energy Affairs

Respondent

Registrar of Deeds, Pretoria

Respondent

Land Agricultural Bank of South Africa

Respondent

First National Bank of South Africa Ltd

Respondent

J C Liebenberg

Respondent

H Kruger

Respondent

Senwes Limited

Respondent

N W K Limited

Respondent

P J Liebenberg

Respondent

J C C Cilliers

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Land Claims Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Land Claims Court erred in making a non-restoration order without sufficient evidence from the state regarding feasibility.
  2. 2 Whether the state is obliged to lead evidence on the cost and feasibility of restoration under the Restitution of Land Rights Act.
  3. 3 Whether failure to call for such evidence constitutes a material irregularity that vitiates the non-restoration order.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Land Claims Court erred in making a non-restoration order without sufficient evidence from the state regarding the feasibility of restoring the land to the Baphiring Community. The state failed to conduct a proper feasibility study and did not provide material evidence on critical factors such as the cost of expropriation, institutional and financial support, social disruption, and the impact on current occupants. This omission constituted a material irregularity that vitiated the non-restoration order. The matter was remitted to the Land Claims Court to consider and determine anew the feasibility of restoration, with specific directions to...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; order of the Land Claims Court set aside; matter remitted for reconsideration of feasibility of restoration.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld.
  • The order of the Land Claims Court dated 19 January 2010 is set aside.