Richtersveld and Others v Alexkor Ltd and Another (LCC151/98) [2001] ZALCC 34; [2001] 4 All SA 563 (LCC) (6 August 2001)

Richtersveld and Others v Alexkor Ltd and Another (LCC151/98) [2001] ZALCC 34; [2001] 4 All SA 563 (LCC) (6 August 2001)

The court found that the plaintiffs, although dispossessed of the subject land after 1913, failed to prove that the dispossession was effected by racially discriminatory laws or practices as required by section 2(1)(d) of the Restitution Act and section 25(7) of the Constitution. The dispossession was linked to diamond mining and applied to all inhabitants, not specifically targeting the plaintiffs on racial grounds. The Land Claims Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to develop the common law to recognise indigenous title, as its powers are limited by statute. The court concluded that there was no reasonable prospect that a higher court would reverse or materially alter its findings,...

Citation
[2001] ZALCC 34
Parties
Plaintiff: The Richtersveld Community; Plaintiff: The Kuboes Community; Plaintiff: The Sanddrift Community; Plaintiff: The Lekkersing Community; Plaintiff: The Eksteenfontein Community; Defendant: Alexkor Limited; Defendant: The Government of the Republic of South Africa
Court
Land Claims Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 August 2001
Case Number
LCC 151/98
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Certificate Under Rule 18(6) of Constitutional Court Rules and Leave to Appeal to Supreme Court of Appeal
Outcome
Application for certificate to appeal directly to the Constitutional Court refused; application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal dismissed; no order as to costs.
Judges
A Gildenhuys, M Wiechers
Legal Topics
Restitution of Land Rights Act, Section 25 Constitution, Racially Discriminatory Laws, Indigenous Title, Development of Common Law
Land and Property Constitutional Law Restitution of Land Rights Act Section 25 Constitution Racially Discriminatory Laws Indigenous Title Development of Common Law

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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Richtersveld Community

Plaintiff

The Kuboes Community

Plaintiff

The Sanddrift Community

Plaintiff

The Lekkersing Community

Plaintiff

The Eksteenfontein Community

Plaintiff

Alexkor Limited

Defendant

The Government of the Republic of South Africa

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Certificate Under Rule 18(6) of Constitutional Court Rules and Leave to Appeal to Supreme Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs are communities whose members or forebears had rights in the subject land.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiffs were dispossessed of the subject land after 19 June 1913.
  3. 3 Whether the dispossession occurred as a result of racially discriminatory laws or practices.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiffs, although dispossessed of the subject land after 1913, failed to prove that the dispossession was effected by racially discriminatory laws or practices as required by section 2(1)(d) of the Restitution Act and section 25(7) of the Constitution. The dispossession was linked to diamond mining and applied to all inhabitants, not specifically targeting the plaintiffs on racial grounds. The Land Claims Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to develop the common law to recognise indigenous title, as its powers are limited by statute. The court concluded that there was no reasonable prospect that a higher court would reverse or materially alter its findings,...

Court Disposition

Application for certificate to appeal directly to the Constitutional Court refused; application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal dismissed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • It is certified that the appeal raises constitutional issues of substance, but there is no reasonable prospect that another court will reverse or materially alter the order.
  • The evidence is sufficient for the Constitutional Court to dispose of the appeal if leave is granted.