South Africa Case Law

Mluleki Martin Chithi and Others v Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform and Others (1203/2021; 1334/2021; 261/2022)

Mluleki Martin Chithi and Others v Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform and Others (1203/2021; 1334/2021; 261/2022) [2024] ZASCA 149; [2025] 1 All SA 1 (SCA); 2025 (3) SA 183 (SCA) (4 November 2024)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

1203/2021; 1334/2021; 261/2022

Judges

Zondi, Hughes, Matojane, Seegobin, Keightley

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Land Claims Court was correct to separate and decide the 'community issue' under rule 57(1)(c), as it was a discrete legal question capable of separate determination. The evidence established that the Mavundulu Community did not exist as a community as defined in the Restitution Act at the time of dispossession; their occupation and use of the land after 1913 was as labour tenants and farm workers, not under shared rules of a community. The lay and expert evidence failed to prove the existence of a cohesive group with rights derived from common rules.…

Source excerpt

• Restitution Of Land Rights Act
• Community Definition
• Costs Orders
• Recusal Of Judge
• Judicial Independence
• Separation Of Issues

Hilton Community v Minister of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development and Others (LCC72/2020)

Hilton Community v Minister of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development and Others (LCC72/2020) [2023] ZALCC 15 (18 May 2023)

Court

Land Claims Court

Case number

LCC72/2020

Judges

Y S Meer, S S Luthuli, A Andrews

The Court found that there was no evidence that a community, as defined in the Restitution of Land Rights Act, resided on or was dispossessed from the claimed land. The claim originated from Ms Ngcobo, who was removed from land elsewhere, not the subject properties. The inspection in loco and witness statements confirmed that neither the Plaintiff nor the Fourth Defendant met the statutory definition of a community with rights in the claimed land. The expert report and aerial photographs did not support community occupation. Consequently, the claim for restitution was dismissed. Regarding cos…

Source excerpt

• Restitution Of Land Rights Act
• Community Definition
• Costs Award Against State
• Inspection In Loco
• Constitutional Litigation
• Expert Evidence

Mavhundulu Community v The Minister of Agriculture, Rural Development & Land Reform and Others (LCC125/2008)

Mavhundulu Community v The Minister of Agriculture, Rural Development & Land Reform and Others (LCC125/2008) [2021] ZALCC 19 (16 August 2021)

Court

Land Claims Court

Case number

LCC 125/2008

Judge

Canca

The court found that the claimants failed to prove they constituted a community as required by the Restitution of Land Rights Act, as their occupation and use of land did not derive from common rules but had devolved into labour tenancy and farm labour over time. The application of Rule 57(1) to separate and adjudicate the issue of community status was proper and within the court's discretion, given the alternative framing of the rule. The exclusion of Dr. Ndlovu's expert evidence was justified based on the assessment of his qualifications and the substance of his testimony. The initial appli…

Source excerpt

• Restitution Of Land Rights Act
• Leave To Appeal
• Community Definition
• Costs Orders
• Expert Evidence
• Separation Of Issues

Qwabe-Waterfall Community v Minister of Rural Development and Land Affairs and Others (03/2014)

Qwabe-Waterfall Community v Minister of Rural Development and Land Affairs and Others (03/2014) [2018] ZALCC 15 (11 December 2018)

Court

Land Claims Court

Case number

03/2014

Judges

Bertelsmann, Sibeko

The Land Claims Court dismissed a broad restitution claim after finding no proven communal occupation or dispossession, and ordered punitive costs against the state defendants.

• Restitution Of Land Rights Act
• Community Definition
• Title Deeds Evidence
• Punitive Costs
• Racial Dispossession
• Expert Evidence

Popela Community and Others v Goedgelegen Tropical Fruits ((Pty) Ltd (441/05)

Popela Community and Others v Goedgelegen Tropical Fruits ((Pty) Ltd (441/05) [2006] ZASCA 170; 2007 (2) SA 21 (SCA) (28 September 2006)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

441/05

Judges

Farlam, Conradie, Ponnan, Theron, Cachalia

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellants failed to establish a causal connection between their dispossession and any racially discriminatory law or practice. The termination of labour tenancy by the farm owners was motivated by business efficiency and not prompted by government policy or legislation. The relevant government notice prohibiting future labour tenancy did not affect existing tenants and was issued after the dispossession. There was no evidence that any government agency or functionary encouraged or required the dispossession. The expert opinion that all such terminati…

Source excerpt

• Restitution Of Land Rights Act
• Labour Tenancy
• Causal Connection
• Racially Discriminatory Practices
• Community Definition
• Costs Award