Thobejane and Others v Regional Lands Claim Commissioner for Limpopo and Others (LCC 74/2018) [2022] ZALCC 3 (14 February 2022)

Thobejane and Others v Regional Lands Claim Commissioner for Limpopo and Others (LCC 74/2018) [2022] ZALCC 3 (14 February 2022)

The court found that the applicants and the second respondent are competing claimants to the disputed land, both asserting constitutional rights to restitution. The applicants relied on an incomplete validation report to support their contention that the second respondent's claim was frivolous and vexatious, but the report lacked sufficient authority and completeness to establish a clear right to withdrawal of the notice. The court was not satisfied that the first respondent had made a determination on the frivolous or vexatious nature of the claim. The applicants' locus standi was accepted, but their entitlement to a mandatory withdrawal order was not established. Given the competing...

Citation
[2022] ZALCC 3
Parties
Applicant: Tebogo Simon Thobejane; Applicant: Maseboti Simon Pholwane; Applicant: Cedrick Pholoshi Mogoba; Applicant: Molohlanye William Phala; Applicant: Kgolane Daphney Thobejane; Respondent: Regional Land Claims Commissioner for Limpopo; Respondent: Roka Mashabela Tribal Authority; Respondent: Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform; Respondent: Nkgonyeletje William Mashabela
Court
Land Claims Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 February 2022
Case Number
LCC 74/2018
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Rule Nisi Issued; Respondents to Show Cause
Outcome
Rule Nisi issued; respondents to show cause why notice should not be withdrawn. Costs awarded against first respondent.
Judges
Flatela
Legal Topics
Restitution of Land Rights Act, Competing Land Claims, Frivolous and Vexatious Claims, Locus Standi, Administrative Review, Notice Withdrawal
Land and Property Administrative Law Civil Procedure Restitution of Land Rights Act Competing Land Claims Frivolous and Vexatious Claims Locus Standi Administrative Review +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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tebogo Simon Thobejane

Applicant

Maseboti Simon Pholwane

Applicant

Cedrick Pholoshi Mogoba

Applicant

Molohlanye William Phala

Applicant

Kgolane Daphney Thobejane

Applicant

Regional Land Claims Commissioner for Limpopo

Respondent

Roka Mashabela Tribal Authority

Respondent

Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform

Respondent

Nkgonyeletje William Mashabela

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Rule Nisi Issued; Respondents to Show Cause

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the second respondent's land claim is frivolous or vexatious under section 2 of the Restitution of Land Rights Act.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants have locus standi to bring the application on behalf of the Tjate community.
  3. 3 Whether the first respondent's refusal to withdraw the notice was lawful and procedurally fair.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants and the second respondent are competing claimants to the disputed land, both asserting constitutional rights to restitution. The applicants relied on an incomplete validation report to support their contention that the second respondent's claim was frivolous and vexatious, but the report lacked sufficient authority and completeness to establish a clear right to withdrawal of the notice. The court was not satisfied that the first respondent had made a determination on the frivolous or vexatious nature of the claim. The applicants' locus standi was accepted, but their entitlement to a mandatory withdrawal order was not established. Given the competing...

Court Disposition

Rule Nisi issued; respondents to show cause why notice should not be withdrawn. Costs awarded against first respondent.

Orders

  • Rule Nisi issued, returnable on 15 March 2022, calling upon the first and second respondents to show cause why an order should not be made to have the notice withdrawn against the applicants' properties within 15 days.
  • The first respondent must confirm by 4 March 2022 whether the validation report recommending rejection of the second respondent's claim was approved, and whether publication of the claim was not an obvious error.