Farao and Another v Regional Land Claims Commissioner and Others (LCC137/2019) [2020] ZALCC 16 (6 November 2020)

Farao and Another v Regional Land Claims Commissioner and Others (LCC137/2019) [2020] ZALCC 16 (6 November 2020)

The court found that the applicants failed to establish locus standi to seek relief regarding the deed of settlement, as they were not parties to it and did not demonstrate a direct or substantial interest. The land claim lodged under the invalid Amendment Act could not be processed beyond acknowledgment, and there was no evidence that the claim would have been gazetted to trigger protection under section 11(7) of the Restitution of Land Rights Act. The allegations of duress in the conclusion of the deed of settlement were refuted by Mankopan's attorney, and the settlement ensured subsistence occupation rights for Mankopan. The application was ill-conceived, and the interim interdict was...

Citation
[2020] ZALCC 16
Parties
Applicant: Farao, Christoffel; Applicant: Hanse Family Land Claims Committee; Respondent: The Regional Land Claims Commissioner; Respondent: The Director-General of Rural Development and Land Reform; Respondent: Gibson, William James; Respondent: Van Heerden N.O., Frederick Johannes; Respondent: The Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform; Respondent: The Premier of the Western Cape; Respondent: The Ceres Karoo Farm Trust
Court
Land Claims Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 November 2020
Case Number
LCC137/2019
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Determination of Interim Relief and Costs
Outcome
Application dismissed; interim interdict set aside; costs awarded against applicants.
Judges
Spilg
Legal Topics
Restitution of Land Rights Act, Interim Interdict, Locus Standi, Community Land Claims, Invalidity of Legislation, Urgent Relief
Land and Property Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Restitution of Land Rights Act Interim Interdict Locus Standi Community Land Claims Invalidity of Legislation +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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Farao, Christoffel

Applicant

Hanse Family Land Claims Committee

Applicant

The Regional Land Claims Commissioner

Respondent

The Director-General of Rural Development and Land Reform

Respondent

Gibson, William James

Respondent

Van Heerden N.O., Frederick Johannes

Respondent

The Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform

Respondent

The Premier of the Western Cape

Respondent

The Ceres Karoo Farm Trust

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Determination of Interim Relief and Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have locus standi to seek relief regarding the deed of settlement affecting Meideberg farm.
  2. 2 Whether the interim interdict staying the implementation of the deed of settlement should be confirmed or discharged.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants or Mankopan have rights in land protected by the Restitution of Land Rights Act, given the invalidity of the Amendment Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to establish locus standi to seek relief regarding the deed of settlement, as they were not parties to it and did not demonstrate a direct or substantial interest. The land claim lodged under the invalid Amendment Act could not be processed beyond acknowledgment, and there was no evidence that the claim would have been gazetted to trigger protection under section 11(7) of the Restitution of Land Rights Act. The allegations of duress in the conclusion of the deed of settlement were refuted by Mankopan's attorney, and the settlement ensured subsistence occupation rights for Mankopan. The application was ill-conceived, and the interim interdict was...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; interim interdict set aside; costs awarded against applicants.

Orders

  • The interim ex parte order granted on 25 November 2019 staying the implementation and execution of the deed of settlement is set aside and the rule discharged.
  • The applicants are jointly and severally liable for the costs, including all reserved costs on the party and party scale.