Nongoma Commonage Community and Another v Regional Land Claims Commissioner, KwaZulu-Natal and Others (LCC52/2016) [2017] ZALCC 2 (28 March 2017)

Nongoma Commonage Community and Another v Regional Land Claims Commissioner, KwaZulu-Natal and Others (LCC52/2016) [2017] ZALCC 2 (28 March 2017)

The court found that the Applicants' restitution claim had been subject to an unreasonable and unlawful delay by the First Respondent, who failed to process and finalise the claim despite statutory and constitutional obligations. The Respondents' arguments regarding consolidation and the identity of the claimant...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] ZALCC 2
Parties
Applicant: Nongoma Commonage Community; Applicant: Mnxuswa Community Trust; Respondent: Regional Land Claims Commissioner, KwaZulu-Natal; Respondent: Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform
Court
Land Claims Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 March 2017
Case Number
LCC52/2016
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Opposed Application for Administrative Relief and Costs
Outcome
Application granted with costs against the First and Second Respondents, relief as per draft order.
Judges
Ncube AJ
Legal Topics
Restitution of Land Rights Act, Administrative Delay, Constitutional Right of Access to Court, State Obligations, Costs Orders
Land and Property Administrative Law Restitution of Land Rights Act Administrative Delay Constitutional Right of Access to Court State Obligations Costs Orders

Source-derived case record

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nongoma Commonage Community

Applicant

Mnxuswa Community Trust

Applicant

Regional Land Claims Commissioner, KwaZulu-Natal

Respondent

Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Opposed Application for Administrative Relief and Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the First Respondent unlawfully delayed the processing and finalisation of the Applicants' restitution claim.
  2. 2 Whether the Applicants are entitled to access to all documents and the file relating to their restitution claim.
  3. 3 Whether the Respondents are obliged to appoint a valuer and provide a valuation report within a reasonable time.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Applicants' restitution claim had been subject to an unreasonable and unlawful delay by the First Respondent, who failed to process and finalise the claim despite statutory and constitutional obligations. The Respondents' arguments regarding consolidation and the identity of the claimant were rejected based on documentary evidence and prior assurances. The Applicants are entitled to access all documents relating to their claim, the appointment of a valuer, and a report specifying steps and timeframes for finalisation. The Respondents' conduct warranted a costs order, though not on a punitive basis or de bonis propris. The court granted the relief sought by the...

Court Disposition

Application granted with costs against the First and Second Respondents, relief as per draft order.

Orders

  • The First Respondent is ordered to hand over to the Applicants' Attorneys copies of the entire file and all documents relating to the restitution claim lodged on 19 November 1997 under reference KRH6/2/2/E34/0/0/5 by no later than 26 May 2017.
  • The First Respondent is ordered to appoint a valuer by no later than 26 May 2017 to value all properties claimed and to instruct the valuer to complete the valuation and furnish the First Applicant within sixty days.