Saint and Others v Chief Land Claims Commissioner and Others (LCC36/2018) [2020] ZALCC 14 (1 October 2020)

Saint and Others v Chief Land Claims Commissioner and Others (LCC36/2018) [2020] ZALCC 14 (1 October 2020)

The court found that the Heads of Agreement, Management Agreement, and Section 42D submissions together constitute a binding and enforceable settlement agreement covering all three phases of the Mathulini land claim. The State Respondents' reliance on clause 3.3 to stall or restructure the implementation of phases 2 and 3 was rejected, as the alleged dissension within the community had already been resolved by previous judgments, which are res judicata. The evidence showed that the parties had committed to the restoration of the properties in three phases, and the State Respondents had acted in accordance with the agreements by conducting valuations and making offers to purchase. The...

Citation
[2020] ZALCC 14
Parties
Applicant: Revell Clive Saint; Applicant: RRR Ventures CC; Applicant: DDD Ventures CC; Applicant: Kembali Farms CC; Applicant: Silver Hills Nurseries (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Vshambani CC; Applicant: Irene Saint; Applicant: Ligitprops 1034 CC; Applicant: Dovea Estates CC; Applicant: Dovea Trust; Applicant: Mayo Farm CC; Applicant: Ashbrook Farms (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Ashbrook Trust; Applicant: Bechoo Brothers Farming Enterprises CC; Applicant: Richard Houghting; Applicant: Hibberdene / Mtwalume Farmers Association; Respondent: Chief Land Claims Commissioner; Respondent: Regional Land Claims Commissioner, KwaZulu-Natal; Respondent: Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform; Respondent: The Mathulini Communal Property Association; Respondent: Inkosi Bhekizizwe Nivard Luthuli; Respondent: The Valuer General; Respondent: Paul Anthony Saad; Respondent: B J Gasa Farm CC
Court
Land Claims Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 October 2020
Case Number
LCC36/2018
Procedural Posture
Declaratory Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application granted. Declaratory orders issued enforcing the settlement agreements for phases 2 and 3. Punitive costs awarded against the State Respondents.
Judges
Y S Meer
Legal Topics
Restitution of Land Rights Act, Settlement Agreement Enforcement, Just and Equitable Compensation, Res Judicata, Community Property Association, Attorney and Client Costs
Land and Property Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Restitution of Land Rights Act Settlement Agreement Enforcement Just and Equitable Compensation Res Judicata Community Property Association +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Revell Clive Saint

Applicant

RRR Ventures CC

Applicant

DDD Ventures CC

Applicant

Kembali Farms CC

Applicant

Silver Hills Nurseries (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Vshambani CC

Applicant

Irene Saint

Applicant

Ligitprops 1034 CC

Applicant

Dovea Estates CC

Applicant

Dovea Trust

Applicant

Mayo Farm CC

Applicant

Ashbrook Farms (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Ashbrook Trust

Applicant

Bechoo Brothers Farming Enterprises CC

Applicant

Richard Houghting

Applicant

Hibberdene / Mtwalume Farmers Association

Applicant

Chief Land Claims Commissioner

Respondent

Regional Land Claims Commissioner, KwaZulu-Natal

Respondent

Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform

Respondent

The Mathulini Communal Property Association

Respondent

Inkosi Bhekizizwe Nivard Luthuli

Respondent

The Valuer General

Respondent

Paul Anthony Saad

Respondent

B J Gasa Farm CC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Declaratory Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Heads of Agreement, Management Agreement, and Section 42D submissions constitute a binding settlement agreement for all phases of the Mathulini land claim.
  2. 2 Whether the State Respondents are entitled to stall or restructure the implementation of phases 2 and 3 due to alleged dissension within the Mathulini Community.
  3. 3 Whether the declaratory relief sought by the Applicants should be granted to enforce the agreements for phases 2 and 3.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Heads of Agreement, Management Agreement, and Section 42D submissions together constitute a binding and enforceable settlement agreement covering all three phases of the Mathulini land claim. The State Respondents' reliance on clause 3.3 to stall or restructure the implementation of phases 2 and 3 was rejected, as the alleged dissension within the community had already been resolved by previous judgments, which are res judicata. The evidence showed that the parties had committed to the restoration of the properties in three phases, and the State Respondents had acted in accordance with the agreements by conducting valuations and making offers to purchase. The...

Court Disposition

Application granted. Declaratory orders issued enforcing the settlement agreements for phases 2 and 3. Punitive costs awarded against the State Respondents.

Orders

  • The Heads of Agreement, Management Agreement, and Section 42D submissions for Phases 1 and 2 constitute the settlement agreement under section 14(3) of the Restitution Act.
  • The Heads of Agreement, Management Agreement, Section 42D submissions, and annexure RS23 are valid, enforceable, and pertain to Phases 2 and 3 of the Mathulini Land Claim.