Mokoena and Others v Lambrechts Familie Testamentere Trust and Others (LCC36/2019) [2022] ZALCC 37 (14 June 2022)

Mokoena and Others v Lambrechts Familie Testamentere Trust and Others (LCC36/2019) [2022] ZALCC 37 (14 June 2022)

The court held that a labour tenant seeking a determination of status under section 33(2A) is not limited to relief specifically contemplated by that section. Labour tenants enjoy substantive rights under section 3 of the Labour Tenants Act, which do not depend on the outcome of an application under section 17. The court possesses jurisdiction to determine both status and the rights flowing from that status, including land use and servitudes, at trial. The special pleas raised by the second defendant, which sought to limit the court's competence to status determination only, were rejected. The court found that the plaintiffs' entitlement to relief regarding their rights as labour tenants...

Citation
[2022] ZALCC 37
Parties
Plaintiff: Bhuti Zephania Mokoena; Plaintiff: Paul Samuel Mokoena; Plaintiff: Nomasonto Sinnah Mokoena; Plaintiff: Betty Joana Mokoena; Plaintiff: Other Descendants of Mokoena Family; Defendant: Lambrechts Familie Testamentere Trust; Defendant: Cornelius Gabriel Volschcenk; Defendant: Director-General of the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform; Defendant: Minister of the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform
Court
Land Claims Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 June 2022
Case Number
LCC36/2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Action / Special Pleas Raised by Second Defendant; Interlocutory Determination Prior to Trial
Outcome
Second defendant's first and second special pleas dismissed; no order as to costs.
Judges
Cowen
Legal Topics
Labour Tenants Act, Jurisdiction of Land Claims Court, Special Plea, Rights of Labour Tenants, Registration of Servitudes
Land and Property Civil Procedure Labour Tenants Act Jurisdiction of Land Claims Court Special Plea Rights of Labour Tenants Registration of Servitudes

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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bhuti Zephania Mokoena

Plaintiff

Paul Samuel Mokoena

Plaintiff

Nomasonto Sinnah Mokoena

Plaintiff

Betty Joana Mokoena

Plaintiff

Other Descendants of Mokoena Family

Plaintiff

Lambrechts Familie Testamentere Trust

Defendant

Cornelius Gabriel Volschcenk

Defendant

Director-General of the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform

Defendant

Minister of the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action / Special Pleas Raised by Second Defendant; Interlocutory Determination Prior to Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Land Claims Court has jurisdiction to grant relief determining the rights and servitudes of labour tenants outside referral proceedings under section 16 and 17 of the Labour Tenants Act.
  2. 2 Whether the relief sought in prayers 2 and 4 can be adjudicated prior to referral by the Director-General under section 18(7) of the Labour Tenants Act.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiffs are limited to relief under section 33(2A) at this stage.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that a labour tenant seeking a determination of status under section 33(2A) is not limited to relief specifically contemplated by that section. Labour tenants enjoy substantive rights under section 3 of the Labour Tenants Act, which do not depend on the outcome of an application under section 17. The court possesses jurisdiction to determine both status and the rights flowing from that status, including land use and servitudes, at trial. The special pleas raised by the second defendant, which sought to limit the court's competence to status determination only, were rejected. The court found that the plaintiffs' entitlement to relief regarding their rights as labour tenants...

Court Disposition

Second defendant's first and second special pleas dismissed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The second defendant's first and second special pleas are dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.