Ramokoka and Others v Maphalane ba Mantserre Community Development Trust and Others (2844/2017) [2018] ZALMPPHC 40 (31 July 2018)

Ramokoka and Others v Maphalane ba Mantserre Community Development Trust and Others (2844/2017) [2018] ZALMPPHC 40 (31 July 2018)

The Limpopo High Court determined that it does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the application, as the relief sought by the applicants—declaratory orders and rectification of the trust deed—would require a determination of rights to restoration of land, which falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Land Claims Court under the Restitution of Land Rights Act. The settlement agreement and consent order, which define the beneficiaries of the trust, were made by the Land Claims Court, and any amendment or rectification must be sought from that court. The preliminary point raised by the respondents was upheld, and the application was dismissed with costs.

Citation
[2018] ZALMPPHC 40
Parties
Applicant: Kgosi J.E.M Ramokoka; Applicant: Baphalane Ba Ramokoka Traditional Community; Respondent: Baphalane Ba Mantserre Community Development Trust IT2178/02; Respondent: Ramokoka Saltiel Digwamaje NO; Respondent: Marakalla Paulus NO; Respondent: Lemi Cornelius Monene NO; Respondent: Nthobe Mpete Delina NO; Respondent: Ditlebe Monegi Petrus NO; Respondent: Sello Shadrack Ramokoka NO; Respondent: Gladys Rangwetsi NO; Respondent: Mpoyana Lazarus Ledwaba NO; Respondent: Registrar of Deeds; Respondent: Master of the High Court: Pretoria
Court
Limpopo High Court, Polokwane
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 July 2018
Case Number
2844/2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application for Declaratory and Ancillary Orders; Preliminary Jurisdictional Objection
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
GC Muller
Legal Topics
Restitution of Land Rights Act, Jurisdiction of Land Claims Court, Rectification of Trust Deed, Declaratory Orders, Settlement Agreement Enforcement
Land and Property Civil Procedure Administrative Law Restitution of Land Rights Act Jurisdiction of Land Claims Court Rectification of Trust Deed Declaratory Orders Settlement Agreement Enforcement

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kgosi J.E.M Ramokoka

Applicant

Baphalane Ba Ramokoka Traditional Community

Applicant

Baphalane Ba Mantserre Community Development Trust IT2178/02

Respondent

Ramokoka Saltiel Digwamaje NO

Respondent

Marakalla Paulus NO

Respondent

Lemi Cornelius Monene NO

Respondent

Nthobe Mpete Delina NO

Respondent

Ditlebe Monegi Petrus NO

Respondent

Sello Shadrack Ramokoka NO

Respondent

Gladys Rangwetsi NO

Respondent

Mpoyana Lazarus Ledwaba NO

Respondent

Registrar of Deeds

Respondent

Master of the High Court: Pretoria

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application for Declaratory and Ancillary Orders; Preliminary Jurisdictional Objection

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the Limpopo High Court have jurisdiction to grant declaratory and ancillary orders relating to the beneficiaries of the Baphalane Ba Mantserre Community Development Trust?
  2. 2 Is the definition of beneficiaries in the trust deed contrary to the settlement agreement made an order of the Land Claims Court?
  3. 3 Can the trust deed be rectified by this court to include the Baphalane Ba Ramokoko community as beneficiaries?

Ratio Decidendi

The Limpopo High Court determined that it does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the application, as the relief sought by the applicants—declaratory orders and rectification of the trust deed—would require a determination of rights to restoration of land, which falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Land Claims Court under the Restitution of Land Rights Act. The settlement agreement and consent order, which define the beneficiaries of the trust, were made by the Land Claims Court, and any amendment or rectification must be sought from that court. The preliminary point raised by the respondents was upheld, and the application was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.