Motsoaledi N.O and Others v Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform and Others (M160/2019) [2021] ZANWHC 34 (10 August 2021)

Motsoaledi N.O and Others v Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform and Others (M160/2019) [2021] ZANWHC 34 (10 August 2021)

The court found that the Minister, as the repository of statutory authority, failed to adequately disclose in the answering affidavit the material facts regarding the delegation of authority for the appointment of the Commissioner. The mere annexing of a memorandum without drawing attention to its relevance was insufficient and contrary to established legal principles. The applicants' challenge to the lawfulness of the appointment was thus not properly answered. Applying the higher threshold under section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act, the court concluded that there was no reasonable prospect that another court would come to a different decision, and no compelling reason to grant leave...

Citation
[2021] ZANWHC 34
Parties
Applicant: Motsoaledi, Rasebepi Piet N.O; Applicant: Mahuma, Anna Matlakal N.O; Applicant: Mophatlane, Masefudi Dorothy N.O; Applicant: Motlhatlhedi, Ramaja Nicholas N.O; Applicant: Magoro, Boiyane Johanna N.O; Respondent: Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform; Respondent: Chief Director, North West Department Rural Development and Land Reform; Respondent: Motla, Francis Sello; Respondent: Motla, Francis Sello N.O; Respondent: Manne, Peter; Respondent: Moalusi, Oupa; Respondent: Maswabela, Johannes; Respondent: Matlala, Andries
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 August 2021
Case Number
M160/2019
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment on Interdict
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused; costs awarded against the First Respondent.
Judges
M Z Makoti
Legal Topics
Delegation of Statutory Powers, Appointment of Land Title Adjustment Commissioner, Lawfulness of Administrative Action, Superior Courts Act Section 17, Motion Proceedings Evidence
Land and Property Administrative Law Delegation of Statutory Powers Appointment of Land Title Adjustment Commissioner Lawfulness of Administrative Action Superior Courts Act Section 17 Motion Proceedings Evidence

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Motsoaledi, Rasebepi Piet N.O

Applicant

Mahuma, Anna Matlakal N.O

Applicant

Mophatlane, Masefudi Dorothy N.O

Applicant

Motlhatlhedi, Ramaja Nicholas N.O

Applicant

Magoro, Boiyane Johanna N.O

Applicant

Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform

Respondent

Chief Director, North West Department Rural Development and Land Reform

Respondent

Motla, Francis Sello

Respondent

Motla, Francis Sello N.O

Respondent

Manne, Peter

Respondent

Moalusi, Oupa

Respondent

Maswabela, Johannes

Respondent

Matlala, Andries

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment on Interdict

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Minister lawfully delegated authority to appoint the Land Title Adjustment Commissioner.
  2. 2 Whether the answering affidavit of the Minister sufficiently disclosed material facts regarding the delegation and appointment.
  3. 3 Whether leave to appeal should be granted under section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Minister, as the repository of statutory authority, failed to adequately disclose in the answering affidavit the material facts regarding the delegation of authority for the appointment of the Commissioner. The mere annexing of a memorandum without drawing attention to its relevance was insufficient and contrary to established legal principles. The applicants' challenge to the lawfulness of the appointment was thus not properly answered. Applying the higher threshold under section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act, the court concluded that there was no reasonable prospect that another court would come to a different decision, and no compelling reason to grant leave...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused; costs awarded against the First Respondent.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal is refused.
  • The First Respondent is ordered to pay the costs of this application are in the appeal.