South Africa Case Law

Tsotetsi and Others v Raubenheimer N.O and Others (LCC140/2020)

Tsotetsi and Others v Raubenheimer N.O and Others (LCC140/2020) [2021] ZALCC 2; 2021 (5) SA 293 (LCC) (18 January 2021)

Court

Land Claims Court

Case number

LCC140/2020

Judges

Cowen, Meer

The Land Claims Court held that the Magistrates Court had jurisdiction under section 19(1)(b) of ESTA to grant interdicts and declaratory orders in matters sufficiently connected to ESTA, including disputes over grazing rights of occupiers. The orders granted by the Magistrate were found to be mandatory and prohibitory interdicts in terms of ESTA, as the right to keep cattle was integrally connected to the Appellants' occupation and use of the land. The evidence established severe overgrazing of the allocated area, justifying the removal of cattle for rehabilitation. The Appellants failed to…

Source excerpt

• Extension Of Security Of Tenure Act
• Conservation Of Agricultural Resources Act
• Magistrates Court Jurisdiction
• Overgrazing
• Mandatory Interdict
• Costs In Esta Matters

Moeleso and Others v Loskop Landgoed Boerdery and Others (LCC174/2018)

Moeleso and Others v Loskop Landgoed Boerdery and Others (LCC174/2018) [2020] ZALCC 19 (2 December 2020)

Court

Land Claims Court

Case number

LCC174/2018

Judge

Yacoob

The Land Claims Court held that reducing occupiers’ grazing rights without a court order was unlawful eviction under ESTA, but left winter fodder unresolved.

• Extension Of Security Of Tenure Act
• Eviction Without Court Order
• Grazing Rights
• Conservation Of Agricultural Resources Act
• Esta
• Eviction

Kubheka v Tonkin and Another (LCC148/2018)

Kubheka v Tonkin and Another (LCC148/2018) [2019] ZALCC 28 (4 January 2019)

Court

Land Claims Court

Case number

LCC148/2018

Judge

T M Ncube

The court found that the demarcated grazing camp was severely overgrazed, with the applicant keeping livestock far in excess of the permitted number. Expert evidence confirmed that the veld was overstocked and required a rest period of two to three years for recovery. The statutory duty under CARA to prevent overgrazing applies to both the owner and occupier, and the applicant's continued grazing contravened these obligations. The argument that the respondents unlawfully reduced the grazing camp was rejected, as both parties agreed overgrazing had occurred regardless of the camp's size. The D…

Source excerpt

• Overgrazing
• Conservation Of Agricultural Resources Act
• Removal Of Livestock
• Mandamus Interdict

Mthethwa and Others v Bester (LCC 112/2011)

Mthethwa and Others v Bester (LCC 112/2011) [2018] ZALCC 17 (18 September 2018)

Court

Land Claims Court

Case number

LCC 112/2011

Judge

Canca

Leave to appeal was refused because the dispute was about alleged grazing rights, not spoliation, and the respondent’s CARA-based counterclaim was correctly granted.

• Spoliation
• Grazing Rights
• Specific Performance
• Conservation Of Agricultural Resources Act
• Leave To Appeal
• Grazing-rights

Mthethwa and Others v Bester and Others (LCC112/2011)

Mthethwa and Others v Bester and Others (LCC112/2011) [2018] ZALCC 39 (20 April 2018)

Court

Land Claims Court

Case number

LCC112/2011

Judge

MP Canca

The applicants failed to establish a clear right to unrestricted grazing or to keep livestock beyond the agreed limits. The evidence, including expert and official reports, confirmed that the grazing area was overstocked and environmentally degraded due to overgrazing by the applicants' livestock. The first respondent was entitled to restrict grazing to prevent further contravention of CARA and environmental harm. The applicants did not challenge the expert recommendations for removal of all livestock, and the court accepted these recommendations as necessary for rehabilitation. The main appl…

Source excerpt

• Extension Of Security Of Tenure Act
• Conservation Of Agricultural Resources Act
• Grazing Rights
• Environmental Degradation
• Interdict
• Removal Of Livestock

Adendorffs Boerderye v Shabalala and Others (997/15)

Adendorffs Boerderye v Shabalala and Others (997/15) [2017] ZASCA 37 (29 March 2017)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

997/15

Judges

Shongwe, Majiedt, Mathopo, Van der Merwe, Mbatha

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Land Claims Court erred by granting orders not sought or pleaded by the parties, including obligations for the appellant to provide alternative grazing and for the Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform to secure grazing for the respondents. The court found that both landowner and land user share responsibility under CARA to prevent overgrazing, but CARA does not preclude civil proceedings by the landowner to enforce rights or remedies. The respondents' grazing rights derived from agreement, not from ESTA or labour tenancy, and the Minister was…

Source excerpt

• Conservation Of Agricultural Resources Act
• Overgrazing
• Removal Of Livestock
• Court Orders
• Costs De Bonis Propriis

Normandien Farms (Pty) Ltd v Mathimbane and Others (LCC196/2013)

Normandien Farms (Pty) Ltd v Mathimbane and Others (LCC196/2013) [2015] ZALCC 14; 2017 (5) SA 204 (LCC) (5 November 2015)

Court

Land Claims Court

Case number

LCC 196/2013

Judge

Y Meer

The court found that the applicant had locus standi to bring the main application under CARA, the Labour Tenants Act, NEMA, and the Constitution, as the relief sought promoted environmental protection and conservation. The respondents' counterclaim for award of land and compensation failed because there was no proof of a valid application for an award in land under the Labour Tenants Act before the statutory cut-off date, and the court lacked authority to grant such relief. The State respondents' failure to act under CARA was noted, but the fourteenth respondent was ordered to make alternativ…

Source excerpt

• Overgrazing
• Conservation Of Agricultural Resources Act
• Labour Tenants Act
• Environmental Rights
• Locus Standi
• Removal Of Livestock