Maloka v Bakgalta ba Mmakau Traditional Authority (LCC38/2020) [2020] ZALCC 17 (2 September 2020)

Maloka v Bakgalta ba Mmakau Traditional Authority (LCC38/2020) [2020] ZALCC 17 (2 September 2020)

The applicant has established urgency as the development concerns claimed land. He has locus standi as an authorised member of the claimant community, and the respondent cannot approbate and reprobate on this issue. The Regional Land Claims Commission was properly joined as an interested party. The respondent did not provide evidence of proper notice under section 11(7)(aA), nor was there evidence of consultation with the claimant community. The applicant has shown a prima facie right to restoration, irreparable harm if the development proceeds, and no alternative remedy. The balance of convenience favours granting the interim interdict, as the respondent's inconvenience is temporary,...

Citation
[2020] ZALCC 17
Parties
Applicant: Amos Phopolo Maloka III; Respondent: Bakgalta ba Mmakau Traditional Authority; Respondent: Regional Land Claims Commission, Limpopo
Court
Land Claims Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 September 2020
Case Number
LCC38/2020
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Interim Interdict Pending Review Application
Outcome
Interim interdict granted; respondent restrained from development pending review. No order as to costs.
Judges
YS Meer
Legal Topics
Restitution of Land Rights Act, Interim Interdict, Locus Standi, Joinder of Parties, Consultation With Claimants
Land and Property Civil Procedure Administrative Law Restitution of Land Rights Act Interim Interdict Locus Standi Joinder of Parties Consultation With Claimants

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Amos Phopolo Maloka III

Applicant

Bakgalta ba Mmakau Traditional Authority

Respondent

Regional Land Claims Commission, Limpopo

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Interim Interdict Pending Review Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has locus standi to seek the interim interdict.
  2. 2 Whether the Regional Land Claims Commission was properly joined as a party.
  3. 3 Whether the Respondent complied with section 11(7)(aA) of the Restitution of Land Rights Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant has established urgency as the development concerns claimed land. He has locus standi as an authorised member of the claimant community, and the respondent cannot approbate and reprobate on this issue. The Regional Land Claims Commission was properly joined as an interested party. The respondent did not provide evidence of proper notice under section 11(7)(aA), nor was there evidence of consultation with the claimant community. The applicant has shown a prima facie right to restoration, irreparable harm if the development proceeds, and no alternative remedy. The balance of convenience favours granting the interim interdict, as the respondent's inconvenience is temporary,...

Court Disposition

Interim interdict granted; respondent restrained from development pending review. No order as to costs.

Orders

  • The Respondent is interdicted from carrying out the development envisaged in the letter dated 27 February 2020 from the Regional Land Claims Commissioner, Limpopo in respect of the remaining extent of Portion 1 of the farm Bultfontein 174 JR.
  • There is no order as to costs.