Luhlwini Mchunu Community v Hancock and Others (LCC121/2017) [2020] ZALCC 5 (27 May 2020)

Luhlwini Mchunu Community v Hancock and Others (LCC121/2017) [2020] ZALCC 5 (27 May 2020)

The Court found that the Applicant's legal team persisted with a community claim for restitution of land rights in defiance of established legal principles and despite explicit cautions from the Court. There was no evidence to satisfy the 'acid test' for a community claim as set out in Goedgelegen, and the litigation was characterized as vexatious, frivolous, and an abuse of process. The Court held that the mechanisms in the Restitution Act do not relieve legal representatives of their ethical obligations, nor do they preclude the Court from disallowing fees where litigation is contrary to established law. The Court's intervention in facilitating payment of counsel's fees was solely to...

Citation
[2020] ZALCC 5
Parties
Applicant: Luhlwini Mchunu Community; Respondent: Laurence Hancock; Respondent: Peter Goble; Respondent: Buckstone CC; Respondent: Michael Roberts; Respondent: Halliwell Property Trust; Respondent: Arthur James Arathoon; Respondent: Amanda Jane Campbell; Respondent: John Norman Campbell; Respondent: Willem Jan Schortemeijer; Respondent: Beth Susan Shaw; Respondent: Brett David Shaw; Respondent: Qondisa Cecil Ngwenya; Respondent: GLR Props 005 CC; Respondent: Newinvest 136 (PTY) LTD; Respondent: Michael Benson; Respondent: Vengarite (PTY) LTD; Respondent: Elpis Trust; Respondent: Mackenzie Trust; Respondent: Sappi Manufacturing (PTY) LTD; Respondent: Mondi (PTY) LTD; Respondent: Church of Province of Southern Africa; Respondent: Regional Land Claims Commissioner, KwaZulu-Natal; Respondent: Minister of Rural Development & Land Reform
Court
Land Claims Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 May 2020
Case Number
LCC121/2017
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal Against Costs Order
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed; no order as to costs.
Judges
Y S Meer
Legal Topics
Restitution of Land Rights Act, Costs Orders, Vexatious Litigation, Leave to Appeal
Land and Property Civil Procedure Restitution of Land Rights Act Costs Orders Vexatious Litigation Leave to Appeal

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Luhlwini Mchunu Community

Applicant

Laurence Hancock

Respondent

Peter Goble

Respondent

Buckstone CC

Respondent

Michael Roberts

Respondent

Halliwell Property Trust

Respondent

Arthur James Arathoon

Respondent

Amanda Jane Campbell

Respondent

John Norman Campbell

Respondent

Willem Jan Schortemeijer

Respondent

Beth Susan Shaw

Respondent

Brett David Shaw

Respondent

Qondisa Cecil Ngwenya

Respondent

GLR Props 005 CC

Respondent

Newinvest 136 (PTY) LTD

Respondent

Michael Benson

Respondent

Vengarite (PTY) LTD

Respondent

Elpis Trust

Respondent

Mackenzie Trust

Respondent

Sappi Manufacturing (PTY) LTD

Respondent

Mondi (PTY) LTD

Respondent

Church of Province of Southern Africa

Respondent

Regional Land Claims Commissioner, KwaZulu-Natal

Respondent

Minister of Rural Development & Land Reform

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal Against Costs Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Applicant's legal team was given adequate notice of the intention to disallow their fees.
  2. 2 Whether the disallowance of fees was justified on the grounds of vexatious and frivolous litigation.
  3. 3 Whether the Restitution of Land Rights Act precludes the Court from disallowing legal fees in these circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the Applicant's legal team persisted with a community claim for restitution of land rights in defiance of established legal principles and despite explicit cautions from the Court. There was no evidence to satisfy the 'acid test' for a community claim as set out in Goedgelegen, and the litigation was characterized as vexatious, frivolous, and an abuse of process. The Court held that the mechanisms in the Restitution Act do not relieve legal representatives of their ethical obligations, nor do they preclude the Court from disallowing fees where litigation is contrary to established law. The Court's intervention in facilitating payment of counsel's fees was solely to...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.