Ramorula Community and Another v Regional Land Claims Commissioner, Limpopo and Others (LCC46/2010) [2023] ZALCC 16 (31 May 2023)

Ramorula Community and Another v Regional Land Claims Commissioner, Limpopo and Others (LCC46/2010) [2023] ZALCC 16 (31 May 2023)

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to prove the existence of a community as defined in the Restitution of Land Rights Act at the time of dispossession or claim. The evidence, including expert testimony and aerial photographs, established that black people settled on Klipplaatdrift as labour tenants from 1920, and dispossession occurred only in respect of Portion 9. The rights of labour tenants were determined by the landowners, not by shared community rules. The restoration of Portion 9 settled the claim, and the extension to other portions was unfounded. The conduct of the Regional Land Claims Commissioner in supporting the broader claim, despite contrary expert evidence and its...

Citation
[2023] ZALCC 16
Parties
Plaintiff: Ramorula Community; Plaintiff: Ramorula Community Property Association; Respondent: Regional Land Claims Commissioner, Limpopo; Defendant: Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform; Defendant: Klipplaat Landgoed (Pty) Ltd; Defendant: Maydeo 33 CC; Defendant: Jochemus Rasmus Erasmus; Defendant: The Koss Opperman Trust; Defendant: Magdalema Elizabeth Opperman
Court
Land Claims Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 May 2023
Case Number
LCC46/2010
Procedural Posture
Land Claim Application / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Plaintiffs' claim to Klipplaatdrift 43 JR, except for Portion 9, is dismissed. Punitive costs awarded against the Regional Land Claims Commissioner and first defendant.
Judges
Ncube, Prof. Luthuli, S
Legal Topics
Restitution of Land Rights Act, Community Land Claims, Labour Tenancy, Costs Award Against State, Expert Evidence, Dispossession Due to Racial Laws
Land and Property Civil Procedure Restitution of Land Rights Act Community Land Claims Labour Tenancy Costs Award Against State Expert Evidence Dispossession Due to Racial Laws

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

Ramorula Community

Plaintiff

Ramorula Community Property Association

Plaintiff

Regional Land Claims Commissioner, Limpopo

Respondent

Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform

Defendant

Klipplaat Landgoed (Pty) Ltd

Defendant

Maydeo 33 CC

Defendant

Jochemus Rasmus Erasmus

Defendant

The Koss Opperman Trust

Defendant

Magdalema Elizabeth Opperman

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Land Claim Application / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs constituted a 'community' as defined in the Restitution of Land Rights Act at the time of dispossession and claim.
  2. 2 Whether the dispossession affected the whole of Klipplaatdrift farm or only Portion 9.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to restitution of land rights beyond Portion 9 of Klipplaatdrift.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to prove the existence of a community as defined in the Restitution of Land Rights Act at the time of dispossession or claim. The evidence, including expert testimony and aerial photographs, established that black people settled on Klipplaatdrift as labour tenants from 1920, and dispossession occurred only in respect of Portion 9. The rights of labour tenants were determined by the landowners, not by shared community rules. The restoration of Portion 9 settled the claim, and the extension to other portions was unfounded. The conduct of the Regional Land Claims Commissioner in supporting the broader claim, despite contrary expert evidence and its...

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' claim to Klipplaatdrift 43 JR, except for Portion 9, is dismissed. Punitive costs awarded against the Regional Land Claims Commissioner and first defendant.

Orders

  • The first plaintiff’s claim to the farm Klipplaatdrift 43 JR, save for the claim to Portion 9 (a portion of Portion 2) which had been settled, is dismissed.
  • The Regional Land Claims Commissioner, Limpopo and the first defendant are ordered, jointly and severally, to pay the costs incurred by the second and third defendants on the attorney and client scale, including costs of senior counsel, attorney, expert witnesses, consultations, inspections in loco, and all related...