Normandien Farms (Pty) Ltd v Mathimbane and Others (LCC196/2013) [2016] ZALCC 29 (16 February 2016)

Normandien Farms (Pty) Ltd v Mathimbane and Others (LCC196/2013) [2016] ZALCC 29 (16 February 2016)

The court found that the grounds of appeal traversed issues already addressed with reasoned findings in the original judgment. The alleged conflict between the present judgment and the order of Sardiwalla AJ was dismissed, as the two orders pertained to separate matters, despite both accepting the labour tenancy status of the First to Twelfth Respondents. The court held that another court would not reach a different conclusion on the issues raised, and therefore, there were no reasonable prospects of success on appeal. Both applications for leave to appeal were dismissed, and no order as to costs was made.

Citation
[2016] ZALCC 29
Parties
Applicant: Normandien Farms (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Mandla Nkosi Joseph Mathimbane; Respondent: Bonginkosi David Mathimbane; Respondent: Phumelelo Florence Mathimbane; Respondent: Mlambuli Obed Mathimbane; Respondent: Sipho Mathimbane; Respondent: Mariam Jele; Respondent: Bernard Jele; Respondent: Martha Jele; Respondent: Albert Jele; Respondent: Apostol Jele; Respondent: Sweet Better Jele; Respondent: Johannes Jele; Respondent: Minister of the National Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries; Respondent: Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform; Respondent: Regional Land Claims Commissioner, KwaZulu-Natal
Court
Land Claims Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
16 February 2016
Case Number
LCC196/2013
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment and Order
Outcome
Both applications for leave to appeal are dismissed. No order as to costs.
Judges
Meer YS
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Labour Tenancy, Interpretation of Statutes, Costs Award, Locus Standi
Land and Property Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Labour Tenancy Interpretation of Statutes Costs Award Locus Standi

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Normandien Farms (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Mandla Nkosi Joseph Mathimbane

Respondent

Bonginkosi David Mathimbane

Respondent

Phumelelo Florence Mathimbane

Respondent

Mlambuli Obed Mathimbane

Respondent

Sipho Mathimbane

Respondent

Mariam Jele

Respondent

Bernard Jele

Respondent

Martha Jele

Respondent

Albert Jele

Respondent

Apostol Jele

Respondent

Sweet Better Jele

Respondent

Johannes Jele

Respondent

Minister of the National Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries

Respondent

Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform

Respondent

Regional Land Claims Commissioner, KwaZulu-Natal

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment and Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there are reasonable prospects of success on appeal against the judgment and order of 5 November 2015.
  2. 2 Whether the findings on counter-claim, costs, locus standi, and statutory interpretation warrant reconsideration by a higher court.
  3. 3 Whether conflicting orders exist between the present judgment and the order of Sardiwalla AJ of 2 April 2014.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the grounds of appeal traversed issues already addressed with reasoned findings in the original judgment. The alleged conflict between the present judgment and the order of Sardiwalla AJ was dismissed, as the two orders pertained to separate matters, despite both accepting the labour tenancy status of the First to Twelfth Respondents. The court held that another court would not reach a different conclusion on the issues raised, and therefore, there were no reasonable prospects of success on appeal. Both applications for leave to appeal were dismissed, and no order as to costs was made.

Court Disposition

Both applications for leave to appeal are dismissed. No order as to costs.

Orders

  • The applications for leave to appeal are dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.