Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Macassar Land Claims Committee v Maccsand CC and Others (LCC37/2003) [2024] ZALCC 22 (16 August 2024)
The Land Claims Court ordered separation of two preliminary issues: the extent of pre-1998 claims by the MJC and CDH Trust, and whether their 2015 counterclaims were duly lodged.
Minister of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development and Others v Ndumo (obo Emdwebu Community) (577/2022) [2023] ZASCA 136 (19 October 2023)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the original claim lodged by Mr Ndumo in 1998 was a family claim and not a community claim. The subsequent conversion and gazetting of the claim as a community claim was not authorised by the Restitution of Land Rights Act. Section 11(2) does not empower the regional land claims commissioner to change the nature of the claim after the statutory cut-off date. The information in the claim form did not support a community claim, and the later affidavit and letter from Mr Ndumo in 2013 were insufficient to retrospectively convert the claim. The Land Claims Co…
Source excerpt
Manenzhe Community v Regional Land Claims Commissioner and Others; Ramphabana Tribe and Others v Regional Land Claims Commissioner,Limpopo and Others (LCC144/2019; LCC48/2021) [2022] ZALCC 29 (30 March 2022)
The Court found that the withdrawal of the February 2021 referral was not irregular, as it was effected before a hearing date had been determined and thus complied with Rule 27. The referral and the application were distinct proceedings, and the withdrawal did not frustrate the directions or orders regulating the conduct of the application. The Court held that the amended gazette (GN 496 of 2021) was an attempt to comply with the court order and was empowered by section 11A of the Restitution Act. The question of whether the amended gazette fully complied with the order was not before the Cou…
Source excerpt
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 requirement…
Source excerpt
Silwane Community Development Trust v Regional Land Claims Commissioner, Kwazulu-Natal and Others (900/2019) [2021] ZASCA 2 (6 January 2021)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Regional Land Claims Commissioner acted within the bounds of the Restitution of Land Rights Act by publishing only those properties expressly identified in the claim forms. The appellant failed to establish any reviewable irregularity or procedural unfairness, as the claim forms were precise and the appellant was afforded opportunities to clarify or expand the claim prior to gazetting. The mapping exercise and tribal meeting minutes did not override the statutory requirement for specificity in the claim forms. The RLCC's decision was rational and proc…
Source excerpt
Makhuva-Mathebula Community v Regional Land Claims Commissioner; In re: Makhuva-Mathebula Land Claim (LCC74/2004) [2018] ZALCC 10 (9 May 2018)
The court held that the applicant failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success on appeal. The land claim form, together with its annexures, was considered the definitive source for identifying the properties subject to the claim. The court found that it is not its duty to interpret the claim form in a purposive manner or to add properties not expressly claimed. The Regional Land Claims Commissioner fulfilled his investigative obligations by seeking clarification regarding Lulekani and amending the gazette accordingly. The burden of identifying claimed land rests with the claimant, n…
Source excerpt
Isizwe Sakwa Dludla (Dludla Tribe) v Regional Land Claims Commissioner, KwaZulu-Natal and Others (LCC03/2009) [2017] ZALCC 9 (12 June 2017)
The Land Claims Court reviewed and set aside the exclusion of Melmoth from a land restitution claim, and ordered the claim to be processed as validly lodged.
Makhuva-Mathebula Community v Regional Land Claims Commissioner Limpopo and Another (LCC74/2004) [2017] ZALCC 6 (10 February 2017)
The court held that the Applicant is not entitled to compel the First Respondent to publish properties not specifically mentioned in the original claim form. The First Respondent acted reasonably by publishing all properties identified in the claim form and, after clarification, expanded the gazette to include the Lulekani district. The Applicant's attempt to include additional privately owned farms not listed in the claim form or forming part of Lulekani under the erstwhile Government of Gazankulu is unjustified. The principle established in Minaar and Bouvest cases applies: only properties…
Source excerpt
Mahlangu v Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform and Another (LCC 48/2011) [2014] ZALCC 7 (21 May 2014)
The Land Claims Court dismissed a late postponement request and held that the Mahlangu Family lacked locus standi because the lodged claim was Ms Sikhosana’s individual claim.
Niehaus v Regional Land Claims Commissioner and Others (LCC147/2010) [2013] ZALCC 14 (6 September 2013)
The court found that the RLCC did not comply with the consent order, which required publication of notice of the Majadibodu Community's claim over the applicant's farms in terms of section 11(1) of the Restitution of Land Rights Act. The RLCC's publication under section 11A(4) was not valid compliance, as the omission of the farms from the original notice was not an obvious error and section 11A(4) is not intended for original publication of claims. The court declined to grant a declaratory order that no claims exist over the applicant's farms, as the Majadibodu Community had asserted a claim…
Source excerpt
Explore more
