Tedstone Flats CC and Others v Maple View Investments (Pty) Ltd and Others (LCC209/2021B) [2025] ZALCC 28 (11 June 2025)

Tedstone Flats CC and Others v Maple View Investments (Pty) Ltd and Others (LCC209/2021B) [2025] ZALCC 28 (11 June 2025)

The Court found that it retained jurisdiction to determine costs because the original order by Ncube J expressly reserved costs for later determination, contingent on the outcome of the review application. When the Municipality abandoned its relocation plan, the review became moot, but the costs issue from Part A remained unresolved. The Municipality's argument that the Court was functus officio was rejected, as the costs order was not final and the Court's own order contemplated a future costs determination. The Court held that Rule 42 of the Uniform Rules of Court allows supplementation of orders where consequential matters, such as costs, were reserved or omitted due to subsequent...

Citation
[2025] ZALCC 28
Parties
Applicant: Tedstone Flats CC and 10 Others; Respondent: Maple View Investments (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Head of the Gauteng Provincial Office of the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform; Respondent: City of Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality; Respondent: Joseph Mojela and 126 Others
Court
Land Claims Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 June 2025
Case Number
LCC209/2021B
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application to Reopen Case for Determination of Costs After Main Application and Review Became Moot
Outcome
Application to reopen the case for determination of costs is granted. Costs relating to Part A of the urgent application are awarded against the Third Respondent on the party and party scale, including the costs of two counsel.
Judges
Mabasa AJ
Legal Topics
Variation of Court Orders, Costs Award, Functus Officio, Review Application Mootness, Municipal Obligations, Public Interest Litigation
Civil Procedure Land and Property Variation of Court Orders Costs Award Functus Officio Review Application Mootness Municipal Obligations Public Interest Litigation

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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tedstone Flats CC and 10 Others

Applicant

Maple View Investments (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Head of the Gauteng Provincial Office of the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform

Respondent

City of Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality

Respondent

Joseph Mojela and 126 Others

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application to Reopen Case for Determination of Costs After Main Application and Review Became Moot

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Land Court has jurisdiction to reopen the case for determination of costs after the review application became moot.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants are entitled to a costs award for Part A of the urgent application.
  3. 3 Whether the delay in bringing the application to reopen is fatal to the applicants' case.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that it retained jurisdiction to determine costs because the original order by Ncube J expressly reserved costs for later determination, contingent on the outcome of the review application. When the Municipality abandoned its relocation plan, the review became moot, but the costs issue from Part A remained unresolved. The Municipality's argument that the Court was functus officio was rejected, as the costs order was not final and the Court's own order contemplated a future costs determination. The Court held that Rule 42 of the Uniform Rules of Court allows supplementation of orders where consequential matters, such as costs, were reserved or omitted due to subsequent...

Court Disposition

Application to reopen the case for determination of costs is granted. Costs relating to Part A of the urgent application are awarded against the Third Respondent on the party and party scale, including the costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The costs relating to Part A of the applicants' urgent application (that was dealt with in the Court Order handed down by the Honourable Judge Ncube on 16 March 2023) are to be paid by the Third Respondent on the party and party scale, including the costs of two counsel.
  • The Third Respondent is ordered to pay the costs of this application on the appropriate party and party scale.