Chithi and Others v The Minister of Agriculture, Rural Development & Land Reform and Others (LCC125/2008) [2021] ZALCC 20 (16 August 2021)

Chithi and Others v The Minister of Agriculture, Rural Development & Land Reform and Others (LCC125/2008) [2021] ZALCC 20 (16 August 2021)

The court found that none of the grounds advanced by the applicants for recusal were supported by the facts or legal principles. The judge's comments regarding the conduct of legal representatives were based on objective assessment of their professional obligations and did not amount to bias. The applicants were afforded opportunities to make representations regarding costs, and the reliance on previous judgments was within judicial norms. The allegation of the judge's participation in a virtual meeting was denied and not substantiated by evidence. The court held that a reasonable, objective and informed person would not apprehend bias on the correct facts. Accordingly, the application...

Citation
[2021] ZALCC 20
Parties
Applicant: Mluleki Martin Chithi; Applicant: Dludlu Attorneys; Applicant: MC Ntshalintshali Attorneys; Respondent: The Minister of Agriculture, Rural Development and Land Reform; Respondent: Regional Land Claims Commissioner; Respondent: DJ Scheuer Farming CC; Respondent: Manfred Martin Hillerman; Respondent: Herman Theodor Heyer; Respondent: Evangelical Lutheran Church New Hanover; Respondent: Hopewell Trust; Respondent: Rolf Matthew Schroder; Respondent: Uhlmann Family Trust; Respondent: Manfred Victor Schroder; Respondent: Woerner Trust; Respondent: White Thorn Trust; Respondent: RM Mark Family; Respondent: Wittemountain Trust; Respondent: Manfred Meyer Family Trust; Respondent: Werner Meyer Family Trust; Respondent: Werner Mark Redinger; Respondent: Ambleside Meats CC; Respondent: Brian Basil Mitropoulus; Respondent: TMJ Investment 15 CC; Respondent: Drogemoller Lif & Short-Term Brokers CC; Respondent: Roland Gerhard Frenzel; Respondent: Cocohaven 1057 CC; Respondent: Royheath Ramdewu and Reetha Ramdewu; Respondent: UCL Co-operative Ltd; Respondent: Mooizicht Trust
Court
Land Claims Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
16 August 2021
Case Number
LCC125/2008
Procedural Posture
Recusal Application / Application for Recusal of Presiding Judge Prior to Hearing Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Application for recusal dismissed; costs awarded against the applicants.
Judges
MP Canca
Legal Topics
Recusal of Judge, Apprehension of Bias, Costs Order, Land Restitution, Legal Professional Conduct
Civil Procedure Land and Property Recusal of Judge Apprehension of Bias Costs Order Land Restitution Legal Professional Conduct

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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mluleki Martin Chithi

Applicant

Dludlu Attorneys

Applicant

MC Ntshalintshali Attorneys

Applicant

The Minister of Agriculture, Rural Development and Land Reform

Respondent

Regional Land Claims Commissioner

Respondent

DJ Scheuer Farming CC

Respondent

Manfred Martin Hillerman

Respondent

Herman Theodor Heyer

Respondent

Evangelical Lutheran Church New Hanover

Respondent

Hopewell Trust

Respondent

Rolf Matthew Schroder

Respondent

Uhlmann Family Trust

Respondent

Manfred Victor Schroder

Respondent

Woerner Trust

Respondent

White Thorn Trust

Respondent

RM Mark Family

Respondent

Wittemountain Trust

Respondent

Manfred Meyer Family Trust

Respondent

Werner Meyer Family Trust

Respondent

Werner Mark Redinger

Respondent

Ambleside Meats CC

Respondent

Brian Basil Mitropoulus

Respondent

TMJ Investment 15 CC

Respondent

Drogemoller Lif & Short-Term Brokers CC

Respondent

Roland Gerhard Frenzel

Respondent

Cocohaven 1057 CC

Respondent

Royheath Ramdewu and Reetha Ramdewu

Respondent

UCL Co-operative Ltd

Respondent

Mooizicht Trust

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Recusal Application / Application for Recusal of Presiding Judge Prior to Hearing Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the presiding judge should recuse himself due to alleged bias or apprehension of bias.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants were denied a fair hearing regarding the costs order.
  3. 3 Whether the judge's reliance on previous judgments and conduct in pre-trial conferences constitutes grounds for recusal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that none of the grounds advanced by the applicants for recusal were supported by the facts or legal principles. The judge's comments regarding the conduct of legal representatives were based on objective assessment of their professional obligations and did not amount to bias. The applicants were afforded opportunities to make representations regarding costs, and the reliance on previous judgments was within judicial norms. The allegation of the judge's participation in a virtual meeting was denied and not substantiated by evidence. The court held that a reasonable, objective and informed person would not apprehend bias on the correct facts. Accordingly, the application...

Court Disposition

Application for recusal dismissed; costs awarded against the applicants.

Orders

  • The application by the first, second and third applicants for recusal is dismissed.
  • The first, second and third applicants are to pay the landowner respondents' costs, including the costs of two counsel, on a party and party scale.