Thobejane and Others v The Regional Lands Claim Commissioner for Limpopo and Others ( (LCC 74/2018) [2022] ZALCC 18 (17 June 2022)

Thobejane and Others v The Regional Lands Claim Commissioner for Limpopo and Others ( (LCC 74/2018) [2022] ZALCC 18 (17 June 2022)

The court found that the applicants are competing claimants contesting the second respondent's old claim. The applicants failed to establish a clear right to the withdrawal of the gazetted notice, as the validation report they relied upon was incomplete, undated, and not approved for acceptance purposes. The first respondent had accepted the second respondent's claim after investigation and approval, and the publication of the notice was not an obvious error. The applicants have locus standi as interested parties but cannot obtain a declaratory order invalidating the gazette notice, as the court is not competent to adjudicate the merits of competing claims at this stage. In the interests...

Citation
[2022] ZALCC 18
Parties
Applicant: Tebogo Simon Thobejane; Applicant: Maseboti Simon Pholwane; Applicant: Cedrick Pholoshi Mogoba; Applicant: Molohlanye William Phala; Applicant: Kgolane Daphney Thobejane; Respondent: The Regional Lands Claim Commissioner for Limpopo; Respondent: The Roka Mashabela Tribal Authority; Respondent: The Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform; Respondent: Nkgonyeletje William Mashabela
Court
Land Claims Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 June 2022
Case Number
LCC 74/2018
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Final Judgment After Hearing and Supplementary Affidavits
Outcome
Application dismissed. Claim referred to Land Claims Court for adjudication; applicants included as interested parties. Each party to pay its own costs.
Judges
L Flatela
Legal Topics
Restitution of Land Rights Act, Administrative Review, Locus Standi, Competing Land Claims, Gazette Notice Withdrawal
Land and Property Administrative Law Restitution of Land Rights Act Administrative Review Locus Standi Competing Land Claims Gazette Notice Withdrawal

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 11 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

The Regional Lands Claim Commissioner for Limpopo

Respondent

The Roka Mashabela Tribal Authority

Respondent

The Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform

Respondent

Nkgonyeletje William Mashabela

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Final Judgment After Hearing and Supplementary Affidavits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first respondent should withdraw the gazetted notice of claim in terms of section 11A(1) of the Restitution of Land Rights Act.
  2. 2 Whether the second respondent's claim is frivolous or vexatious under section 2 and section 11(1) of the Restitution Act.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants have locus standi to bring the application on behalf of the Tjate community.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants are competing claimants contesting the second respondent's old claim. The applicants failed to establish a clear right to the withdrawal of the gazetted notice, as the validation report they relied upon was incomplete, undated, and not approved for acceptance purposes. The first respondent had accepted the second respondent's claim after investigation and approval, and the publication of the notice was not an obvious error. The applicants have locus standi as interested parties but cannot obtain a declaratory order invalidating the gazette notice, as the court is not competent to adjudicate the merits of competing claims at this stage. In the interests...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed. Claim referred to Land Claims Court for adjudication; applicants included as interested parties. Each party to pay its own costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The first respondent is directed to certify and refer the land claim submitted by the second and fourth respondents to the Land Claims Court in terms of section 14 of the Restitution of Land Rights Act 22 of 1994 within 60 days from the date of this order.