Kromkrans Community and Others v Government of the Republic of South Africa and Others (LCC20/2016) [2018] ZALCC 3 (13 February 2018)

Kromkrans Community and Others v Government of the Republic of South Africa and Others (LCC20/2016) [2018] ZALCC 3 (13 February 2018)

The court found that the respondents' delay in seeking review of the Minister's decisions was unreasonable and unexplained, and thus the review application could not be condoned and was dismissed. The agreement concluded under section 42D of the Restitution of Land Rights Act was found to be valid and enforceable, as the State had approved the settlement, acquired the land, and was obliged to register the Communal Property Association and transfer the properties. The respondents' arguments regarding erroneous settlement and unenforceability were rejected as factually and legally unfounded. The applicants were entitled to specific performance compelling the registration of the Communal...

Citation
[2018] ZALCC 3
Parties
Applicant: Kromkrans Community; Applicant: Themba Shabangu; Applicant: Ezekiel Linda Mlotshwa; Applicant: Prudence Ngwenya; Applicant: Gideon Mahlangu; Applicant: Mphikwa Patrick Zulu; Applicant: Nana Mlangeni; Applicant: Phyllis Zodwa Msibi; Applicant: Sonto Mabizela; Applicant: Msesi Jeanette Mhlanga; Applicant: Lucky Selby Gwebu; Applicant: Maketsi Abel Mokoena; Applicant: Sabelo Mabuza; Applicant: Queen Duduzile Nkosi; Applicant: Stanley Hlatshwayo; Applicant: Sam Parks; Applicant: Mirriam Nkosi; Applicant: Balungile Ngwenya; Respondent: Government of the Republic of South Africa; Respondent: Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform; Respondent: Registrar of Deeds, Mpumalanga; Respondent: Director-General: Department of Rural Development and Land Reform; Respondent: Communal Property Association, Registration Officer
Court
Land Claims Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 February 2018
Case Number
LCC 20/2016
Procedural Posture
Specific Performance Application / Reasons for Judgment Following Order
Outcome
Application for specific performance granted; counter-application for review dismissed.
Judges
Barnes
Legal Topics
Restitution of Land Rights Act, Specific Performance, Unreasonable Delay, Community Land Claim, Ministerial Discretion, Costs Award Against State
Land and Property Administrative Law Civil Procedure Restitution of Land Rights Act Specific Performance Unreasonable Delay Community Land Claim Ministerial Discretion +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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kromkrans Community

Applicant

Themba Shabangu

Applicant

Ezekiel Linda Mlotshwa

Applicant

Prudence Ngwenya

Applicant

Gideon Mahlangu

Applicant

Mphikwa Patrick Zulu

Applicant

Nana Mlangeni

Applicant

Phyllis Zodwa Msibi

Applicant

Sonto Mabizela

Applicant

Msesi Jeanette Mhlanga

Applicant

Lucky Selby Gwebu

Applicant

Maketsi Abel Mokoena

Applicant

Sabelo Mabuza

Applicant

Queen Duduzile Nkosi

Applicant

Stanley Hlatshwayo

Applicant

Sam Parks

Applicant

Mirriam Nkosi

Applicant

Balungile Ngwenya

Applicant

Government of the Republic of South Africa

Respondent

Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform

Respondent

Registrar of Deeds, Mpumalanga

Respondent

Director-General: Department of Rural Development and Land Reform

Respondent

Communal Property Association, Registration Officer

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Specific Performance Application / Reasons for Judgment Following Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Minister's decisions to approve settlement agreements under section 42D of the Restitution of Land Rights Act are reviewable after an unreasonable delay.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants are entitled to specific performance compelling registration of the Communal Property Association and transfer of land.
  3. 3 Whether the agreement concluded between the applicants and the State is enforceable.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondents' delay in seeking review of the Minister's decisions was unreasonable and unexplained, and thus the review application could not be condoned and was dismissed. The agreement concluded under section 42D of the Restitution of Land Rights Act was found to be valid and enforceable, as the State had approved the settlement, acquired the land, and was obliged to register the Communal Property Association and transfer the properties. The respondents' arguments regarding erroneous settlement and unenforceability were rejected as factually and legally unfounded. The applicants were entitled to specific performance compelling the registration of the Communal...

Court Disposition

Application for specific performance granted; counter-application for review dismissed.

Orders

  • The first and second respondents’ counter-application is dismissed.
  • The second respondent is ordered to comply with its obligations under the agreement concluded with the applicants under section 42D of the Restitution of Land Rights Act 22 of 1994, dated 25 May 2004.