Majeje Traditional Authority v Ba-Phalaborwa ba-ga-Selwane Community and Another (LCC74/2004) [2008] ZALCC 10 (8 May 2008)

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