Mda and Others v Regional Land Claims Commissioner, Eastern and Others (LCC250/2015B) [2017] ZALCC 29 (14 May 2017)

Mda and Others v Regional Land Claims Commissioner, Eastern and Others (LCC250/2015B) [2017] ZALCC 29 (14 May 2017)

The First and Second Respondents failed to comply with the court order dated 4 November 2016 by not dealing exclusively with the Zimbane Land Claims Committee, convening meetings without informing the committee, and reinstating the Community Property Association contrary to the order. Their conduct demonstrated a flagrant disregard for the authority of the court and the specific directives issued. The respondents provided no meaningful explanation or defence for their actions and did not attempt to resolve complaints as required. In light of these facts, and applying the principles that costs may be awarded against the State in cases of unreasonable conduct or contempt, the court found it...

Citation
[2017] ZALCC 29
Parties
Applicant: Ntandazo Mda; Applicant: Wonga Tuswa; Applicant: Tembisile Mkanzi; Applicant: Onele Ngcingane; Applicant: Jonga John Mkefelele; Applicant: Bongani Lucas Madikazi; Applicant: Sabelo Vikilahle; Applicant: Nyamekamda; Applicant: Nokubonga Maxwele; Applicant: Xolelwa Ngqinambi; Respondent: Regional Land Claims Commissioner, Eastern Cape; Respondent: Chief Director: Land Restitution Support, Eastern Cape; Respondent: Zukile Matu; Respondent: Sibulele Oscar Mnqotho; Respondent: Themba Bam; Respondent: Ntsikelelo Maki; Respondent: Nombeko Maxwele; Respondent: Phakamisa Manengela; Respondent: Dumisa Mlanjeni; Respondent: Phuthuma Tuswa; Respondent: Mkhulu Maxwele; Respondent: Lizwi Mbalane; Respondent: Siphumle Tyumre; Respondent: Mhlangabezigaqaba
Court
Land Claims Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 May 2017
Case Number
LCC250/2015B
Procedural Posture
Costs Application / Post Interlocutory; Determination of Costs Following Contempt Proceedings
Outcome
Costs awarded against the First and Second Respondents, jointly and severally.
Judges
S. Poswa-Lerotholi
Legal Topics
Costs Award, Contempt of Court, Community Property Association, Restitution of Land Rights, Public Interest Litigation
Land and Property Civil Procedure Administrative Law Costs Award Contempt of Court Community Property Association Restitution of Land Rights Public Interest Litigation

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ntandazo Mda

Applicant

Wonga Tuswa

Applicant

Tembisile Mkanzi

Applicant

Onele Ngcingane

Applicant

Jonga John Mkefelele

Applicant

Bongani Lucas Madikazi

Applicant

Sabelo Vikilahle

Applicant

Nyamekamda

Applicant

Nokubonga Maxwele

Applicant

Xolelwa Ngqinambi

Applicant

Regional Land Claims Commissioner, Eastern Cape

Respondent

Chief Director: Land Restitution Support, Eastern Cape

Respondent

Zukile Matu

Respondent

Sibulele Oscar Mnqotho

Respondent

Themba Bam

Respondent

Ntsikelelo Maki

Respondent

Nombeko Maxwele

Respondent

Phakamisa Manengela

Respondent

Dumisa Mlanjeni

Respondent

Phuthuma Tuswa

Respondent

Mkhulu Maxwele

Respondent

Lizwi Mbalane

Respondent

Siphumle Tyumre

Respondent

Mhlangabezigaqaba

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Costs Application / Post Interlocutory; Determination of Costs Following Contempt Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the First and Second Respondents acted in contempt of the court order dated 4 November 2016.
  2. 2 Whether the conduct of the First and Second Respondents warrants an adverse costs order.
  3. 3 Whether the general rule that costs follow the result should be applied in the context of public interest litigation under the Restitution Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The First and Second Respondents failed to comply with the court order dated 4 November 2016 by not dealing exclusively with the Zimbane Land Claims Committee, convening meetings without informing the committee, and reinstating the Community Property Association contrary to the order. Their conduct demonstrated a flagrant disregard for the authority of the court and the specific directives issued. The respondents provided no meaningful explanation or defence for their actions and did not attempt to resolve complaints as required. In light of these facts, and applying the principles that costs may be awarded against the State in cases of unreasonable conduct or contempt, the court found it...

Court Disposition

Costs awarded against the First and Second Respondents, jointly and severally.

Orders

  • The First and Second Respondents are ordered to pay to the applicants the costs of this application, jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved.