District Six Commitee and Others v Minister of Rural Development & Land Reform and Others (LCC54/2018) [2019] ZALCC 15; 2019 (5) SA 164 (LCC) (20 March 2019)

District Six Commitee and Others v Minister of Rural Development & Land Reform and Others (LCC54/2018) [2019] ZALCC 15; 2019 (5) SA 164 (LCC) (20 March 2019)

The court found that the respondents had failed to provide restitution to the majority of District Six claimants who lodged valid claims by 31 December 1998, with only a small fraction having received homes. The respondents' previous stance that their obligations were fulfilled in 2002 was untenable, given the ongoing lack of delivery and absence of a concrete plan or timeline. The collaborative process with the claimant community did not absolve the respondents of their constitutional and statutory duties, which remain owed to each individual claimant. The delay of over 20 years in providing restitution constitutes a breach of section 25(7) and section 237 of the Constitution, as well as...

Citation
[2019] ZALCC 15
Parties
Applicant: District Six Committee; Applicant: Mymoena Classen; Applicant: Annie Bam; Applicant: Mariam Simons; Applicant: Cedric Adamson; Applicant: Mariam Moseval; Applicant: Amiena Kriel; Applicant: Cyril Samuel Wagener; Respondent: Minister of Rural Development & Land Reform; Respondent: Commission on Restitution of Land Rights; Respondent: City of Cape Town; Respondent: Premier of the Province of Western Cape; Respondent: Government of the Republic of South Africa; Respondent: Trustees for the time being of the District Six Beneficiary and Redevelopment Trust
Court
Land Claims Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 March 2019
Case Number
LCC54/2018
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application granted. Declaratory relief issued. Costs awarded against the first, second and fifth respondents.
Judges
Kollapen
Legal Topics
Restitution of Land Rights Act, Section 25 Property Rights, Structural Interdict, Declaratory Relief, Constitutional Obligations, Costs Order
Land and Property Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Restitution of Land Rights Act Section 25 Property Rights Structural Interdict Declaratory Relief Constitutional Obligations +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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

District Six Committee

Applicant

Mymoena Classen

Applicant

Annie Bam

Applicant

Mariam Simons

Applicant

Cedric Adamson

Applicant

Mariam Moseval

Applicant

Amiena Kriel

Applicant

Cyril Samuel Wagener

Applicant

Minister of Rural Development & Land Reform

Respondent

Commission on Restitution of Land Rights

Respondent

City of Cape Town

Respondent

Premier of the Province of Western Cape

Respondent

Government of the Republic of South Africa

Respondent

Trustees for the time being of the District Six Beneficiary and Redevelopment Trust

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the failure of the first, second and fifth respondents to provide restitution to District Six claimants who lodged valid claims by 31 December 1998 constitutes a violation of their rights and a breach of constitutional and statutory obligations.
  2. 2 Whether a declaratory order should be granted to clarify the respondents' ongoing obligations to claimants.
  3. 3 Determination of costs liability.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondents had failed to provide restitution to the majority of District Six claimants who lodged valid claims by 31 December 1998, with only a small fraction having received homes. The respondents' previous stance that their obligations were fulfilled in 2002 was untenable, given the ongoing lack of delivery and absence of a concrete plan or timeline. The collaborative process with the claimant community did not absolve the respondents of their constitutional and statutory duties, which remain owed to each individual claimant. The delay of over 20 years in providing restitution constitutes a breach of section 25(7) and section 237 of the Constitution, as well as...

Court Disposition

Application granted. Declaratory relief issued. Costs awarded against the first, second and fifth respondents.

Orders

  • It is declared that the failure of the first, second and fifth respondents to provide restitution to District Six claimants who lodged valid claims by 31 December 1998 constitutes a violation of the rights of those claimants and a breach of the obligations of those respondents in terms of section 7(2), section 25(7)...
  • The first respondent is directed to deliver a redevelopment plan for District Six to the court within three months, with subsequent reports every three months until completion.