Majeje Traditional Authority v Ba-Phalaborwa ba-ga-Selwane Community and Another (LCC74/2004) [2008] ZALCC 10 (8 May 2008)
- Citation
- [2008] ZALCC 10
- Status
- Order
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Land Claims Court
- Panel
- Gildenhuys
- Case number
- LCC74/2004
More details
- Court
- Land Claims Court
- Panel
- Gildenhuys
- Case number
- LCC74/2004
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Court directed that all outstanding annexures and information regarding the ownership and allocation of the disputed properties must be provided by the Regional Land Claims Commissioner. The Department of Land Affairs must clarify its ownership and allocation of the listed farms and deliver a notice of intention to participate if it wishes to be involved. The communal property association must be served and given an opportunity to participate. The claim in respect of Selwane 719 LT may be precluded from restoration if not properly gazetted. All outstanding services must be effected within seven days, and notices delivered in accordance with the rules. The provisional trial date is cancelled, and new dates for further proceedings are set.
Court disposition
Pre-trial directions issued; trial date postponed; orders for service and provision of information.
Orders
- The Regional Land Claims Commissioner must provide all outstanding annexures and ownership information as directed.
- The Department of Land Affairs must deliver a notice of intention to participate before the end of May if it wishes to be involved.
- All outstanding services and notices must be effected within seven days in accordance with rule 38(3) of the Land Claims Court Rules.
- The communal property association must be served and notified of its right to participate.
- The provisional trial date of 12 August 2008 is cancelled; further pre-trial conference set for 28 July 2008; trial dates provisionally reserved for 3-5 November 2008.
02
Material facts
Parties
Majeje Traditional Authority
ApplicantBa-Phalaborwa Ba-Ga-Selwane Community
Respondent Counsel: Mr Havenga SCRegional Land Claims Commissioner (Limpopo Province)
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Land and Property Application / Face to Face Pre Trial Conference
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether all relevant annexures to the land claim form have been provided to the Court.
- 02
Which state department is the registered owner of the properties previously held by the Gazangulu Government and SA Development Trust.
- 03
Whether the Ba-Phalaborwa Ba-Ga-Selwane communal property association properly represents the claimant community.
- 04
Whether the claim in respect of the farm Selwane 719 LT has been properly gazetted.
- 05
What legal rights the Majeje Tribal Authority claims over the disputed farms.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The Majeje Traditional Authority opposes the restitution claim only in respect of certain farms listed in its response dated 22 June 2007. It seeks clarification of its legal rights over the farms allocated to the Majeje Tribe, specifically whether it is the registered owner or merely holds control.
- Respondent
- The Ba-Phalaborwa Ba-Ga-Selwane Community, represented by its communal property association, asserts its status as a community under the Restitution of Land Rights Act and claims restitution of the listed properties. It disputes that the community held any rights in respect of the farms after 1930 and seeks confirmation of ownership and allocation details from the Department of Land Affairs.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Restitution of Land Rights Act
A claimant community must be properly represented in restitution proceedings, either by a communal property association or a duly mandated committee.
- 02
Land Claims Court Rules
Service of process must be effected on all interested parties and relevant state departments in accordance with rule 38(3) of the Land Claims Court Rules.
- 03
Restitution of Land Rights Act
Restoration orders cannot be granted for properties not properly gazetted as part of the claim.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Court directed that all outstanding annexures and information regarding the ownership and allocation of the disputed properties must be provided by the Regional Land Claims Commissioner. The Department of Land Affairs must clarify its ownership and allocation of the listed farms and deliver a notice of intention to participate if it wishes to be involved. The communal property association must be served and given an opportunity to participate. The claim in respect of Selwane 719 LT may be precluded from restoration if not properly gazetted. All outstanding services must be effected within seven days, and notices delivered in accordance with the rules. The provisional trial date is cancelled, and new dates for further proceedings are set.
Obiter and limits
- The Department of Land Affairs should be involved in these proceedings, but was not present at the conference.
- It is recommended that the Department of Land Affairs delivers a notice of intention to participate before the end of the month.
- If the information regarding ownership is incorrect, the Department must state who the registered owners are and to which government department the land has been allocated.
- The Regional Land Claims Commissioner is ultimately responsible for presenting correct information to the Court.
- The claim in respect of the farm Selwane 719 LT may not be considered if it was not intended to be referred to the Court.
Court disposition
Pre-trial directions issued; trial date postponed; orders for service and provision of information.
- The Regional Land Claims Commissioner must provide all outstanding annexures and ownership information as directed.
- The Department of Land Affairs must deliver a notice of intention to participate before the end of May if it wishes to be involved.
- All outstanding services and notices must be effected within seven days in accordance with rule 38(3) of the Land Claims Court Rules.
- The communal property association must be served and notified of its right to participate.
- The provisional trial date of 12 August 2008 is cancelled; further pre-trial conference set for 28 July 2008; trial dates provisionally reserved for 3-5 November 2008.
Source and reliance status
Land Claims Court
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Land Claims Court
Order
IN
THE LAND CLAIMS COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
HELD
AT RANDBURG
Case No: LCC74/2004
In the matter of:
MAJEJE
TRADITIONAL AUTHORITY Applicant
and
BA-PHALABORWA BA-GA-SELWANE COMMUNITY 1st Respondent
THE
REGIONAL LAND CLAIMS COMMISSIONER
(LIMPOPO PROVINCE) 2nd Respondent
MINUTES OF THE FACE-TO-FACE PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE HELD ON 8 MAY 2008 AT 14:00
Attendances:
Judge Gildenhuys – Presiding judge
Mr Moolman – Attorney for the first respondent
Mr Havenga SC – Advocate for the first respondent
Mr Ramalepe – Attorney for the claimants
Mr Bokaba – Advocate for the claimants
Ms Makitla – Regional Land Claims Commissioner, Limpopo
Mr Rapatsa – Regional Land Claims Commissioner, Limpopo
Mr Letsoalo – Provincial Land Reform Officer, Limpopo
1. Mr Ramelepe confirmed that the claimant in this matter is the Ba-Phalaborwa Ba-Ga-Selwane tribe.
2. Some of the annexures referred to in the land claim form dated 24 November 1998 have not been included in the referral report. The Regional Land Claims Commissioner is requested to make these annexures available to the Court. It is possible that the schedules referred to in paragraph 1.1 were rewritten after 1998.
3. It is recorded that service on the following interested persons were effected.
Service on Stella Oosthuizen and John Roux was affected by service on their attorneys.
Service on the Limpopo province was affected by service on its Department of Agriculture.
Service on the Department of Land Affairs was affected at its Polokwane office and at the Head office in Pretoria. The Department of Land Affairs did not deliver a notice to participate. The Department should be involved in these proceedings, but they are not present today.
4. The Department of Land Affairs should know to which state department the properties previously registered in the name of the Gazangulu
Government and the SA Development Trust are allocated. All those state departments must be served.
5. The Regional Land Claims Commissioner is directed to bring the
following to the attention of the Department of Land Affairs:
If it wants to participate in the case (and it is recommended that it does so), it should deliver a notice of intention to participate before the end of this month.
It has been alleged that the Department of Land Affairs is the registered owner of the following properties: the remaining extent of the farm Waterbok 721 LT, ptns 2,3,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16 of farm Waterbok 721 LT; remaining
extent of the farm Nondwene 720 LT; ptns 1,2,3,4,7,8 of the farm Nondwene 720 LT; remaining extent of the farm Belasting 7 LU, now subdivided into 3 ptns; remaining extent of the farm Mahale 718 LT, now subdivided into 3 ptns; Wildebeest 745 LT; Mashawa 748 LT; Hartbeest 743 LT; Loskop 744 LT; Leeuwkop 10 LU; Granville 767 KU and Hamman 747 LT.
If the above information is correct, a conveyancer’s certificate or other proof must be submitted. If it is not correct, the Department must state who the registered owners are and to which Government department (if any) the land has been allocated.
The Regional Land Claims Commissioner is reminded that it is ultimately his responsibility to present the correct information.
6. The Regional Land Claims Commissioner must make sure that the properties listed above include all properties which, according to the Government Gazette notice, is registered in the name of the Gazangulu Government or the SA Development Trust. If any of the properties listed in the Government Gazette are still registered in the name of the Gazangulu Government or the SA Development Trust, it should be indicated to which government department they have been allocated.
7. The Regional Land Claims Commissioner must indicate who the owners of the farm Leeukop 10 LU and Letaba 8 LU are. If the farms belong to the state, it must be disclosed to which department they have been allocated.
8. It was pointed out that the claim in respect of the farm Selwane 719 LT has not been gazetted. This might preclude a restoration order in respect of that farm. The Regional Land Claims Commissioner must look into this. It might be that it was not intended that a claim in respect of that farm be referred to the Court.
9. The Majeje Tribal Authority must clarify what legal rights it claims to hold in respect of the farms which it claims have been allocated to the Majeje Tribe. Is the tribal authority the registered owner of the farms, or has it only been given control?
10. Both the Makhuva and Maenentje communities must be served with notice of the claim.
11. The Ba-Phalaborwa-Ba-Ga-Selwane communal property association has been formed to prosecute the claim. It is in dispute whether the communal property association represents the community or whether the committee which gave Mr Ramalepe his mandate,represents the community. The Regional Land Claims Commissioner is requested to serve the papers on the communal property association (c/o their attorneys Steytler Nel & Partners) and inform them that should they wish to participate in the case they must deliver a notice of intention to participate by not later then the end of May.
12. All outstanding services to be affected as set out in these minutes and in the Court Order of 20 October 2006 must be affected by the Regional Land Claims Commissioner within 7 (seven) days of receipt of a copy of these minutes. A copy of these minutes must be served simultaneously. Service must be in accordance with rule 38(3) of the Land Claims Court Rules. After the services have been affected a notice in terms of rule 38(4) must be delivered.
13. Mr Havenga confirmed that the restitution claim is opposed by the Majeje Traditional Authority only in respect of the farms listed in paragraph 2.12 of its response dated 22 June 2007.
14. None of the parties present today dispute that the claimant is a community as envisaged in the Restitution of Land Rights Act. It is disputed that the community held any rights in respect of the farms concerned after 1930.
15. The provisional trial date of 12 August 2008 is cancelled. A further face-to-face pre-trial conference will take place at the Land Claims Court, Randburg on Monday 28 July 2008. The dates 3 - 5 November 2008 are provisionally reserved for trial. The venue will be determined later.
____
Registrar
8 May 2008
6
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.