Kwaliddolo Communal Property Association v Mahlangu and Others (LCC287/17) [2020] ZALCC 32 (15 February 2020)

Kwaliddolo Communal Property Association v Mahlangu and Others (LCC287/17) [2020] ZALCC 32 (15 February 2020)

The court found that the applicant's delay in filing the rescission application was reasonable, given the reliance on Department officials and the lack of legal sophistication among its members. The explanation for default was accepted as bona fide. On the merits, the applicant demonstrated a bona fide defence to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] ZALCC 32
Parties
Applicant: Kwaliddolo Communal Property Association; Respondent: Korombo Mahlangu; Respondent: Jacob Giyane; Respondent: Obed Mtsweni; Respondent: Willem Suhla; Respondent: Sogulu Job Mnguni; Respondent: Alpheus Mahlangu; Respondent: Simon Masindi; Respondent: Carl Magnus Van Rooyen; Respondent: Mohlakeng Community Trust; Respondent: Minister: Rural Development & Land Reform; Respondent: Department of Rural Development & Land Reform; Respondent: Commission for Restitution of Land Rights; Respondent: Regional Land Claims Commission Nelspruit; Respondent: Minister: Agriculture, Foresties & Fisheries
Court
Land Claims Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 February 2020
Case Number
LCC287/17
Procedural Posture
Rescission Application / Opposed Application for Rescission of Interim Order; Judgment on Merits
Outcome
Rescission application granted; interim order replaced; costs reserved; hearing of Part B postponed sine die.
Judges
M P Canca
Legal Topics
Rescission of Judgment, Interim Interdict, Land Rights Enquiry, Lease Expiry, Condonation for Late Filing
Land and Property Civil Procedure Rescission of Judgment Interim Interdict Land Rights Enquiry Lease Expiry Condonation for Late Filing

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kwaliddolo Communal Property Association

Applicant

Korombo Mahlangu

Respondent

Jacob Giyane

Respondent

Obed Mtsweni

Respondent

Willem Suhla

Respondent

Sogulu Job Mnguni

Respondent

Alpheus Mahlangu

Respondent

Simon Masindi

Respondent

Carl Magnus Van Rooyen

Respondent

Mohlakeng Community Trust

Respondent

Minister: Rural Development & Land Reform

Respondent

Department of Rural Development & Land Reform

Respondent

Commission for Restitution of Land Rights

Respondent

Regional Land Claims Commission Nelspruit

Respondent

Minister: Agriculture, Foresties & Fisheries

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Rescission Application / Opposed Application for Rescission of Interim Order; Judgment on Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether condonation should be granted for the late filing of the rescission application.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has shown good cause for rescission of the interim order granted ex parte.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant has a bona fide defence to the relief sought in the review application (Part B).

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's delay in filing the rescission application was reasonable, given the reliance on Department officials and the lack of legal sophistication among its members. The explanation for default was accepted as bona fide. On the merits, the applicant demonstrated a bona fide defence to the review application, as ownership of the farms had been lawfully awarded to the applicant and the Trust, and the respondents' lease agreements had expired, leaving them with no legal right to occupy. The land rights enquiry confirmed that the respondents, as former lessees, had no claim after lease expiry. The interim order was rescinded and replaced with a new order...

Court Disposition

Rescission application granted; interim order replaced; costs reserved; hearing of Part B postponed sine die.

Orders

  • The rule nisi granted on 6 December 2017 and confirmed on 15 January 2018 is rescinded and replaced.
  • Members of the applicant are interdicted, pending finalisation of Part B, from harassing or damaging property of persons inhabiting Leeuwkop No 228 JR and Rietfontein No 214, including livestock, and from harassing, intimidating, or assaulting the first to eighth applicants farming on those properties.