Dikgalopeng Community (Di Thomo Tsa Bokone) and Others v Chief Land Claims Commissioner and Others [2022] ZALCC 45 (25 October 2022)

Dikgalopeng Community (Di Thomo Tsa Bokone) and Others v Chief Land Claims Commissioner and Others [2022] ZALCC 45 (25 October 2022)

The court found that the applicants failed to satisfy the requirements for urgency, as their conduct and delays in prosecuting the application were inconsistent with the assertion of extreme urgency. The applicants did not establish a prima facie right to the relief sought, nor did they demonstrate that the development would defeat the objects of the Restitution of Land Rights Act. The statutory requirements for interdictory relief under section 6(3) were not met, and notice was not given to all interested parties, including the relevant municipality. The relief sought regarding transfer and subdivision of land was not competent, as there is no statutory or common law requirement for...

Citation
[2022] ZALCC 45
Parties
Applicant: Dikgalopeng Community (Di Thomo Tsa Bokone); Applicant: Andrew Mamadile Mohlala; Applicant: Maribe Mailula Hendrick; Respondent: Chief Land Claims Commissioner; Respondent: Regional Land Claims Commissioner; Respondent: Chief Director: Restitution Support – Limpopo; Respondent: The Minister of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development; Respondent: Bakwena Ba Matsepe Traditional Council; Respondent: Fontis Developments (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Vicicon Property Development (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Tafelkop Mall (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Kopa Properties; Respondent: All Construction Workers at Tafekop Opposite Nonyane Filing Station and Faith Apostolic Church; Respondent: Registrar of Deeds, Polokwane; Respondent: Surveyor-General, Polokwane; Respondent: Morare Patela Abram
Court
Land Claims Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 October 2022
Case Number
LCC 108/2022
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Interim Interdict (part A) Pending Review (part B)
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs awarded against the applicants on a party and party scale.
Judges
Y S Meer
Legal Topics
Restitution of Land Rights Act, Urgent Interdict, Prima Facie Right, Equitable Redress, Environmental Authorisation, Procedural Delay
Land and Property Civil Procedure Administrative Law Restitution of Land Rights Act Urgent Interdict Prima Facie Right Equitable Redress Environmental Authorisation +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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dikgalopeng Community (Di Thomo Tsa Bokone)

Applicant

Andrew Mamadile Mohlala

Applicant

Maribe Mailula Hendrick

Applicant

Chief Land Claims Commissioner

Respondent

Regional Land Claims Commissioner

Respondent

Chief Director: Restitution Support – Limpopo

Respondent

The Minister of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development

Respondent

Bakwena Ba Matsepe Traditional Council

Respondent

Fontis Developments (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Vicicon Property Development (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Tafelkop Mall (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Kopa Properties

Respondent

All Construction Workers at Tafekop Opposite Nonyane Filing Station and Faith Apostolic Church

Respondent

Registrar of Deeds, Polokwane

Respondent

Surveyor-General, Polokwane

Respondent

Morare Patela Abram

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Interim Interdict (part A) Pending Review (part B)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application meets the requirements for urgency.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants have established a prima facie right to the interim interdict sought.
  3. 3 Whether the statutory requirements for interdictory relief under section 6(3) of the Restitution of Land Rights Act are satisfied.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to satisfy the requirements for urgency, as their conduct and delays in prosecuting the application were inconsistent with the assertion of extreme urgency. The applicants did not establish a prima facie right to the relief sought, nor did they demonstrate that the development would defeat the objects of the Restitution of Land Rights Act. The statutory requirements for interdictory relief under section 6(3) were not met, and notice was not given to all interested parties, including the relevant municipality. The relief sought regarding transfer and subdivision of land was not competent, as there is no statutory or common law requirement for...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs awarded against the applicants on a party and party scale.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The Applicants shall bear the costs on a party and party scale.