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
Pebe v Pebe and Others (04/2024) [2025] ZANWHC 114 (4 July 2025)
The High Court dismissed an urgent application for interdictory relief, finding non-joinder of the Tribal Authority and failure to establish a clear right.
Mashiyi v Qhayiso and Others (1806/2019) [2024] ZAECMHC 46 (18 June 2024)
The court found that the applicant, Dr Mashiyi, failed to take possession of the land for 19 years after the alleged allotment in 1998, contrary to the custom requiring occupation within six months. The applicant's explanation for the delay was inadequate and did not cover the entire period. The evidence showed that the land was lawfully reallotted to the first and third respondents by the traditional authority, and the third respondent had developed the land based on valid documentation and confirmation from the Chief. The applicant's documents were inconsistent and did not support his claim…
Source excerpt
Mfolozi Community Environmental Justice Organisation and Others v Tendele Coal Mining (Pty) Ltd and Others (3518/2023P) [2023] ZAKZPHC 72; [2023] 3 All SA 768 (KZP) (13 July 2023)
The court dismissed an interim interdict sought to stop Tendele’s mining activities, holding that the applicants lacked a prima facie right and had an alternative remedy under the MPRDA.
Baleni and Others v Minister of Mineral Resources and Others (73768/2016) [2018] ZAGPPHC 829; [2019] 1 All SA 358 (GP); 2019 (2) SA 453 (GP) (22 November 2018)
The court held that the applicants and the Umgungundlovu community are holders of informal rights in land under IPILRA and customary law, protected by the Constitution. The grant of a mining right over their land constitutes a deprivation of those rights, triggering the consent requirement in section 2(1) of IPILRA. The MPRDA's consultation requirement does not override the need for full and informed consent under IPILRA; both statutes must be read together, with IPILRA providing special protection to customary communities. The Minister of Mineral Resources is obliged to obtain the community'…
Source excerpt
Block 17, Ga-Seaphole Community Development Committee and Others v P.M.E. Business Enterprise t/a Maake Farming and Others (1633/2015) [2018] ZALMPPHC 47 (3 September 2018)
The court found that the respondents are entitled to farm on the portion of land that belonged to the 2nd respondent's father, as this was allotted to the family and protected under IPILRA. However, the extension of the respondents' land was carried out without proper consultation with the community, contravening IPILRA. The PTO obtained by the respondents was declared null and void due to procedural irregularities, but not fraud. The applicants succeeded in obtaining a final interdict against the respondents in respect of the extended land, but not the original family land. Costs of the proc…
Source excerpt
Nandipha NO v Irfani Traders CC t.a Jabulani Hardware and Another (4654/2017) [2018] ZAECMHC 50 (21 August 2018)
The court held that the applicant, as the estate representative, has locus standi to seek relief regarding the property, based on constitutional protections and the Interim Protection of Informal Land Rights Act. The respondents' reliance on the Proclamation No. 26 of 1936 was rejected, as the issue of locus standi had already been decided and is res judicata. The lease agreement relied upon by the respondents was invalid, as it was signed by a person without authority and had expired. The requirements for a final interdict were satisfied: the applicant has a clear right, the respondents' con…
Source excerpt
Mogalakwena Platinum Ltd v Mokhomme and Others (4399/2017) [2018] ZALMPPHC 16 (18 April 2018)
The High Court confirmed an interdict protecting mining operations and dismissed the respondents’ counter application for lack of joinder and proof.
Ingonyama Trust and Others v Umlalazi Municipality and Others (1421/2016) [2016] ZAKZPHC 89 (10 October 2016)
The court found that the applicants are in occupation of the land and enjoy informal rights protected by IPILRA. The respondents' actions in threatening eviction and demolition without a court order contravened both the PIE Act and constitutional protections. The evidence disproved the respondents' claim that the land was unoccupied, and the municipality failed in its duty to consult and compensate the community. The court rejected the respondents' argument that a mandament van spolie cannot prohibit threatened spoliation, holding that threatened spoliation should be prohibited where it would…
Source excerpt
Mandela v Executors Estate Late Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela and Others (2938/2014) [2016] ZAECMHC 13; [2016] 2 All SA 833 (ECM) (7 April 2016)
The court found that the applicant unreasonably delayed bringing the review application, as a reasonable person in her position would have become aware of the Minister's decision to donate the property to Mr Mandela soon after it was made in 1997. The delay of nearly 17 years far exceeded the statutory period under PAJA and was not satisfactorily explained. The court held that the applicant's ignorance of the decision was not reasonable, given the breakdown of the marital relationship, the divorce proceedings, and the exclusion from the property. The prospects of success on the merits were we…
Source excerpt
Blackhill Engineering & Construction CC v Baolong Boora Tshidi Tribal Authority and Others (385/2009) [2012] ZANWHC 21 (31 May 2012)
The High Court held that tribal resolutions granting mining rights were invalid because they were not adopted at a proper community meeting under the governing land-rights law.
Explore more
