Frantz and Another v Sanlucar De Hoek (Pty) Ltd and Others (LCC122/2009; LCC129/2012) [2020] ZALCC 27 (24 November 2020)

Frantz and Another v Sanlucar De Hoek (Pty) Ltd and Others (LCC122/2009; LCC129/2012) [2020] ZALCC 27 (24 November 2020)

The applicants' notice does not constitute a proper application for leave to appeal as it fails to comply with the requirements of Rule 69. It merely records an intention to appeal and does not specify the findings of fact and law appealed against, the grounds for leave, or the court to which leave is sought. The constitutional issues raised were not argued during the original hearing and cannot be entertained at this late stage. Furthermore, the Land Claims Court does not have jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal to the Constitutional Court. Accordingly, the matter is struck from the roll and costs are awarded against the applicants.

Citation
[2020] ZALCC 27
Parties
Applicant: Christo Frantz; Applicant: Saron Landclaims Forum/24 Rivers MSTA; Respondent: Sanlucar De Hoek (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Blue Falcon 140 RF (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: The Regional Land Claims Commissioner: Western Cape; Respondent: The Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform
Court
Land Claims Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 November 2020
Case Number
LCC122/2009; LCC129/2012
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Leave to Appeal After Judgment
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal struck from the roll; costs awarded against the applicants.
Judges
MP Canca
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Notice Requirements, Jurisdiction, Restitution of Land Rights
Civil Procedure Land and Property Leave to Appeal Notice Requirements Jurisdiction Restitution of Land Rights

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christo Frantz

Applicant

Saron Landclaims Forum/24 Rivers MSTA

Applicant

Sanlucar De Hoek (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Blue Falcon 140 RF (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

The Regional Land Claims Commissioner: Western Cape

Respondent

The Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Leave to Appeal After Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants' notice constitutes a proper application for leave to appeal under Rule 69.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants have raised valid constitutional issues for appeal.
  3. 3 Whether the Land Claims Court has jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal to the Constitutional Court.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants' notice does not constitute a proper application for leave to appeal as it fails to comply with the requirements of Rule 69. It merely records an intention to appeal and does not specify the findings of fact and law appealed against, the grounds for leave, or the court to which leave is sought. The constitutional issues raised were not argued during the original hearing and cannot be entertained at this late stage. Furthermore, the Land Claims Court does not have jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal to the Constitutional Court. Accordingly, the matter is struck from the roll and costs are awarded against the applicants.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal struck from the roll; costs awarded against the applicants.

Orders

  • This matter is struck from the roll.
  • Mr. Frantz is to pay the costs of the respondents.