South Africa Case Law

Mpheleng Communal Property Association v Kgoshigadi Mathebe of Bantwane Traditional Community and Others (LCC03/2021B)

Mpheleng Communal Property Association v Kgoshigadi Mathebe of Bantwane Traditional Community and Others (LCC03/2021B) [2025] ZALCC 24 (3 June 2025)

Court

Land Claims Court

Case number

LCC03/2021B

Judge

WJ du Plessis

The court found that not all respondents were bound by the original court order, as some were not cited parties. The Bantwana Traditional Council, as a collective entity, cannot be held in contempt without identifying a specific individual responsible for wilful disobedience. The process of registering the PTO in Mr Aphane's name, following a sale, constituted a fresh allocation of land rights and fell within the scope of the interdict. However, the respondents did not act mala fide, as they genuinely believed their conduct was lawful and outside the ambit of the order. The meaning of 'alloca…

Source excerpt

• Contempt Of Court
• Communal Land Tenure
• Allocation Of Land Rights
• Permission To Occupy
• Interdict
• Customary Law Authority

Mothapo Royal Council and Others v Polokwane Local Municipality and Others (92/2025)

Mothapo Royal Council and Others v Polokwane Local Municipality and Others (92/2025) [2025] ZALMPPHC 22 (14 February 2025)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

92/2025

Judge

Makoti

The court found that the applicants failed to establish a clear right to the interdictory relief sought. The Mothapo Royal Council is not a statutory administrative body and lacks lawful authority to issue letters for spaza shop permits. The Council, similarly, is not lawfully constituted under applicable legislation, and neither body can claim administrative powers. The affected spaza shop owners have no standing to dictate which letters the Municipality should accept. The leadership dispute within the traditional community remains unresolved, and the absence of a recognised council or senio…

Source excerpt

• Interdictory Relief
• Traditional Leadership Dispute
• Rule Of Law
• Urgent Application
• Standing
• Customary Law Authority

Steenkamp N.O v Moeti and Others (A100/2021)

Steenkamp N.O v Moeti and Others (A100/2021) [2022] ZAFSHC 65 (25 March 2022)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

A100/2021

Judges

Daffue, Naidoo, Litheko

The court found that the first respondent was, in fact, an unlawful occupier under PIE, as the appellant, acting as Master’s representative, did not consent to his occupation. However, the court held that it would not be just and equitable to grant an eviction order. The appellant failed to demonstrate any necessity to sell the property, did not consult the heirs or Moeti family, and provided no evidence of estate liabilities requiring sale. The deceased’s Will intended the property to remain within the Moeti generation, and the respondent’s occupation was authorised by family elders in accor…

Source excerpt

• Prevention Of Illegal Eviction Act
• Unlawful Occupation
• Succession And Wills
• Customary Law Authority

Bafokeng Private Land Buyers Association and Others v Royal Bafokeng Nation and Others (999/08)

Bafokeng Private Land Buyers Association and Others v Royal Bafokeng Nation and Others (999/08) [2016] ZANWHC 27 (31 May 2016)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

999/08

Judge

A A Landman

The High Court held that the Royal Bafokeng Nation’s attorneys were authorised to act, finding the 2005 resolution valid and not reversed by 2006 community meetings.

• Customary Law Authority
• Rule 7 Uniform Rules
• Tribal Land Ownership
• Consultation In Customary Law
• Traditional Leadership Powers
• Authority To Litigate