Bouvest 2173 CC and Others v Commission on Restitution of Land Rights and Others (LCC68/2006) [2007] ZALCC 7 (7 May 2007)

Bouvest 2173 CC and Others v Commission on Restitution of Land Rights and Others (LCC68/2006) [2007] ZALCC 7 (7 May 2007)

The Court found that the Motse community did not exist at the time of dispossession or claim lodgement, and that the claims published in the Government Gazette included farms not claimed by the third, fourth, and fifth respondents. The decision to accept and publish the Motse community claim was not rationally...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2007] ZALCC 7
Parties
Applicant: Bouvest 2173 CC; Applicant: Henri Geerkens Familietrust; Applicant: Hendrik Lourens Scott; Applicant: Mellowood Beleggings BK; Applicant: Johanna Maria Geyser; Applicant: Johannes Jacobus Nel; Applicant: Willem Hendrik Saayman; Applicant: Plaasweltevreden 508 (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Herberg Boerdery (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Hendrik Bernardus van der Walt; Applicant: Michiel Frederick & Maria S M Horn; Applicant: Bergalleen Boerdery CC; Applicant: Mariua Susanna van Tonder; Applicant: Casper Jan Hendrik van der Walt; Applicant: Jan & Sarie Elizabeth Jacobs Lewies; Applicant: Sohnel Boerdery (Edms) Bpk; Respondent: Commission on Restitution of Land Rights; Respondent: Regional Land Claims Commissioner: Limpopo; Respondent: Mokibelo Saterdag Mokitlane; Respondent: Bahlaleroa Community; Respondent: Sois Lesiba Mosehlana; Respondent: Mokitlane Land Claim Committee; Respondent: Motse Community
Court
Land Claims Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 May 2007
Case Number
LCC68/2006
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application for review granted. The decision of the second respondent to accept and publish the Motse community claim in respect of the applicants' farms is reviewed and set aside.
Judges
Gildenhuys
Legal Topics
Restitution of Land Rights Act, Administrative Review, Community Land Claims, Rationality Test, Merger of Claims
Administrative Law Land and Property Restitution of Land Rights Act Administrative Review Community Land Claims Rationality Test Merger of Claims

Source-derived case record

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 6 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bouvest 2173 CC

Applicant

Henri Geerkens Familietrust

Applicant

Hendrik Lourens Scott

Applicant

Mellowood Beleggings BK

Applicant

Johanna Maria Geyser

Applicant

Johannes Jacobus Nel

Applicant

Willem Hendrik Saayman

Applicant

Plaasweltevreden 508 (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Herberg Boerdery (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Hendrik Bernardus van der Walt

Applicant

Michiel Frederick & Maria S M Horn

Applicant

Bergalleen Boerdery CC

Applicant

Mariua Susanna van Tonder

Applicant

Casper Jan Hendrik van der Walt

Applicant

Jan & Sarie Elizabeth Jacobs Lewies

Applicant

Sohnel Boerdery (Edms) Bpk

Applicant

Commission on Restitution of Land Rights

Respondent

Regional Land Claims Commissioner: Limpopo

Respondent

Mokibelo Saterdag Mokitlane

Respondent

Bahlaleroa Community

Respondent

Sois Lesiba Mosehlana

Respondent

Mokitlane Land Claim Committee

Respondent

Motse Community

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Regional Land Claims Commissioner was entitled to accept and publish a claim for restitution of land rights by the Motse community in respect of the applicants' farms.
  2. 2 Whether the Motse community existed as a community at the time of dispossession or claim lodgement as required by the Restitution of Land Rights Act.
  3. 3 Whether the claims published in the Government Gazette were rationally connected to the information before the Commissioner and the reasons given for the decision.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the Motse community did not exist at the time of dispossession or claim lodgement, and that the claims published in the Government Gazette included farms not claimed by the third, fourth, and fifth respondents. The decision to accept and publish the Motse community claim was not rationally connected to the information before the Commissioner and was not authorised by the Restitution of Land Rights Act. The applicants' review application was brought within the prescribed period after exhausting internal remedies. The Court held that the first and second respondents were not entitled to accept and publish a claim for restitution of land rights by the Motse community in...

Court Disposition

Application for review granted. The decision of the second respondent to accept and publish the Motse community claim in respect of the applicants' farms is reviewed and set aside.

Orders

  • It is declared that the first and second respondents were not entitled under the Restitution of Land Rights Act, 1994, to accept and publish a claim for restitution of land rights by the seventh respondent in respect of the applicants' properties listed in the order.
  • The decision of the second respondent to accept a claim for restitution of land rights in the name of the seventh respondent and to publish notice thereof in the Government Gazette by way of Notices No 164 of 2005 and No 893 of 2005 is reviewed and set aside, insofar as it relates to the specified properties.