Torlage N.O and Another v Minister of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development and Others and Rural Develpoment (LCC161/2018B) [2022] ZALCC 8 (29 March 2022)

Torlage N.O and Another v Minister of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development and Others and Rural Develpoment (LCC161/2018B) [2022] ZALCC 8 (29 March 2022)

The Court found that the claim forms did not describe or claim Portions 1, 4 and 6 of the farm Waterval No 51, which are owned by the Applicants. The RLCC unlawfully included these properties in the Government Gazette and referral report, despite the claim forms accurately describing other land. The mapping exercise and pointing out of boundaries did not justify the inclusion of unclaimed land, especially where the claim forms were clear and specific. The review application was brought within 180 days of the Applicants acquiring actual knowledge of the irregularity, satisfying the requirements of PAJA. The RLCC failed to apply its mind and acted irrationally and unlawfully by including...

Citation
[2022] ZALCC 8
Parties
Applicant: Coenraad Frederick Torlage N.O; Applicant: Bergtuin (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Minister of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development; Respondent: Chief Land Claims Commissioner; Respondent: Regional Land Claims Commissioner; Respondent: Utrecht Townland Community
Court
Land Claims Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 March 2022
Case Number
LCC161/2018B
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application granted; the decision to publish and refer the Applicants' farms is reviewed and set aside; costs awarded against the First, Second and Third Respondents on attorney and client scale, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Y S Meer
Legal Topics
Restitution of Land Rights Act, Gazetting of Land Claims, Judicial Review, Administrative Action, Time Limits for Review
Land and Property Administrative Law Restitution of Land Rights Act Gazetting of Land Claims Judicial Review Administrative Action Time Limits for Review

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

Coenraad Frederick Torlage N.O

Applicant

Bergtuin (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Minister of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development

Respondent

Chief Land Claims Commissioner

Respondent

Regional Land Claims Commissioner

Respondent

Utrecht Townland Community

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the inclusion of Portions 1, 4 and 6 of the farm Waterval No 51 in the Government Gazette was lawful.
  2. 2 Whether the referral of the Applicants' farms to the Land Claims Court for adjudication constituted an illegality.
  3. 3 Whether the review application was brought within the prescribed time limits under PAJA.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the claim forms did not describe or claim Portions 1, 4 and 6 of the farm Waterval No 51, which are owned by the Applicants. The RLCC unlawfully included these properties in the Government Gazette and referral report, despite the claim forms accurately describing other land. The mapping exercise and pointing out of boundaries did not justify the inclusion of unclaimed land, especially where the claim forms were clear and specific. The review application was brought within 180 days of the Applicants acquiring actual knowledge of the irregularity, satisfying the requirements of PAJA. The RLCC failed to apply its mind and acted irrationally and unlawfully by including...

Court Disposition

Application granted; the decision to publish and refer the Applicants' farms is reviewed and set aside; costs awarded against the First, Second and Third Respondents on attorney and client scale, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The decision by the Second Respondent to publish in Government Gazette No 24116 of 6 December 2002, per Notice 3063/2002, the immovable properties described as Portion 2, 4 and 6 of the farm Waterval No 51 is reviewed and set aside.
  • It is declared that the referral of the Applicants' farms to the Land Claims Court for adjudication in terms of section 14(1) of the Restitution of Land Rights Act No 22 of 1994 constitutes an illegality and is set aside and deleted from the referral of the claim to this Court.