|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| November 2013 |
|
|
Substituted service refused absent thorough property, municipal and CIPC enquiries; applicant given leave to supplement papers.
* Civil procedure – substituted service – applicant must prove all reasonable steps taken to identify and locate person to be served; tracing-agent reports alone inadequate. * Restitution proceedings – service on registered owners – need for property visits, municipal/rates enquiries, CIPC/auditor searches, and executor appointment checks for deceased estates. * Edictal citation required where person believed to be outside Republic.
|
28 November 2013 |
|
Mining on claimed land is unlawful without LUPO departure; mining interdicted pending lawful land-use approval.
Land use law — LUPO section 15(1) — temporary departure required before mining where zoning does not permit mining; Constitutional Court confirmed LUPO's role distinct from mining rights. Contempt — requirements for civil contempt (order, notice, non-compliance, willfulness/mala fides) — municipality processing an application does not amount to consideration or contempt. Variation of prior court order — court may vary terms to afford affected party notice and opportunity to be heard. Evidence — "without prejudice" settlement communications and inadmissible opinion evidence may be struck out.
|
8 November 2013 |
| October 2013 |
|
|
Court censured the Commission and State Attorney for delay, ordered punitive costs but declined to find contempt; set strict directions to finalise claim.
* Restitution of land rights – administrative and procedural duties of the Commission – compliance with section 14 and Rule 39.
* Civil contempt – requirement of wilfulness and mala fides; collective organs of state and proof beyond reasonable doubt.
* Costs – State/Commission may be mulcted with punitive costs (attorney and client) for unexplained delay and non‑compliance.
* Case management – court power to identify responsible officials, enforce service and impose deadlines to finalise restitution claims.
|
30 October 2013 |
| September 2013 |
|
|
Section 11A(4) amendment cannot substitute for required section 11(1) publication; s11A proviso only corrects patent errors.
Restitution of Land Rights Act — procedure after lodgement — s11(1) requires publication only if regional commissioner is satisfied the criteria are met; s11A(4) amendment proviso permits correction of obvious/patent errors but is not for original publication; consent order interpretation; declaratory relief inappropriate where it would preclude potential claimant rights; Biowatch costs principle applied.
|
6 September 2013 |
| July 2013 |
|
|
Separated dispossession finding under the Restitution Act is appealable; leave to appeal refused for lack of prospects.
• Restitution of Land Rights Act – separated issues under Rule 57 – appealability of dispossession determination; • Appealability – Zweni criteria: finality, definitiveness of rights, substantial portion of relief; • Civil procedure – convenience and avoiding unnecessary further proceedings justify piecemeal appeal; • Costs – correction of patent error relating to expert witness costs; • Leave to appeal – assessment of reasonable prospects of success.
|
30 July 2013 |
| June 2013 |
|
|
Commissioner reasonably refused further state funding under section 29(4) after finding claimant could afford appeal from award.
* Administrative law – judicial review – duty to give reasons – later ad hoc reasons constitute impermissible ex post facto rationalisation.
* Restitution Act s29(4) – state-funded legal representation conditional on lack of affordability; means test permissible.
* Internal guidelines – instructive but not legally binding; may be considered without operating as rigid rule.
* Constitutional rights – access to courts upheld but may be balanced against affordability and public purse considerations.
|
4 June 2013 |
| May 2013 |
|
|
Pre-2000 land-claim dismissal not reviewable under PAJA; procedural defects bar review; undecided claim must be processed.
Restitution Act — Rule 3 — Regional Land Claims Commissioner’s decision to dismiss a claim — Decision constituting administrative action pre-PAJA — PAJA non-retrospective — common-law review preserved — procedural requirements for review under Restitution Act (s36 and record) — duty to process undecided land claims (s11(1)).
|
17 May 2013 |
|
Reported
Sales forced by apartheid-era laws constitute dispossession under the Restitution Act; race does not bar restitution claims.
Restitution of land – dispossession – forced sales under apartheid-era racial legislation – sales under threat of expropriation constitute dispossession; Interpretation – Restitution Act and Constitution do not exclude claimants by race or means; Administrative law – Regional Land Claims Commissioner lacks power to reject non‑bogus claims on the merits; Costs – attorney-and-client costs and specified disbursements justified for irresponsible defence conduct.
|
17 May 2013 |
|
Reported
Whether the applicants proved enforceable oral agreements obliging the State to pay farming input and development costs.
Restitution negotiations – alleged oral agreements for reimbursement of farming input and development costs – requirement of meeting of minds and essentialia of contract; evidentiary value of negotiation minutes and witness credibility; interaction with statutory/regulatory constraints on concluding agreements under the Restitution regime.
|
14 May 2013 |
| April 2013 |
|
|
Applicant dispossessed under Restitution Act; State ordered to pay costs; compensation inquiry postponed sine die.
* Land restitution – dispossession by sale to the South African Development Trust under Development Trust and Land Act – dispossession found where sales arising from proclamations were not voluntary. * Constitutional/public-interest litigation – Biowatch principle applies to costs in restitution claims against the State; particularly powerful reasons required to deny costs to successful private litigant. * Costs – State ordered to pay taxed costs of preliminary dispossession hearing, including expert and bundle preparation costs. * Determination of just and equitable compensation postponed sine die.
|
10 April 2013 |
| March 2013 |
|
|
Applicants were held to be ESTA occupiers; main relief became moot and both application and unresolved counter‑claim were dismissed.
* Land law/ESTA – definition and status of "occupier" – section 1 and section 3(5) presumption of residency; * Non-joinder – person in charge may be sued under ESTA; * Civil procedure – ex parte interim relief, audi alteram partem and return date consideration; * Remedies – mootness where factual position changes (sale of impounded cattle); * Claims for costs/expenses – need for particulars, invoices and established causa (delict or contract).
|
5 March 2013 |
| January 2013 |
|
|
Applicants failed to prove labour-tenant or occupier status; Court lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the interdict application with no costs.
Land Claims Court jurisdiction — Labour Tenants Act and ESTA — statutory definitions and evidentiary burden to prove labour-tenant or occupier status; procedural irregular steps and proper remedy; sufficiency of founding affidavit; costs de bonis propriis standard.
|
29 January 2013 |
|
Court ordered RLCC to show cause whether applicant’s land was referred or why separation of trials should not be granted.
Land claims — Referral under s 14(1) Restitution Act — Service and joinder of interested parties — Rule 57(1)(c) Land Claims Court Rules (separation of issues) — Separation of trials under Uniform Rule 10(5) — Procedural fairness where multi‑parcel referrals involve settled, opposing and non‑opposing owners — Rule nisi directed at Regional Land Claims Commissioner to clarify referral status.
|
29 January 2013 |
|
Leave to appeal and condonation granted where defendants challenged misrepresentation, retrospectivity, voluntariness and prescription issues.
Restitution of Land Rights Act – settlement under section 42D – alleged misrepresentation by officials – retrospectivity of departmental memorandum on compensation – voluntariness of settlement – prescription – leave to appeal and condonation for late filing.
|
25 January 2013 |
|
The applicant secured orders to remove and demolish an unauthorised dwelling built without consent on the farm.
Landowner rights under ESTA; definition of occupier and family members; tacit consent to build; unlawfulness of unauthorised structures; mandatory and prohibitory interdicts (vacation and demolition); distinction between eviction under ESTA and interdictory relief.
|
23 January 2013 |
|
Termination of periodic leases justified; eviction granted after balancing owner and occupier rights despite lack of alternative accommodation.
Extension of Security of Tenure Act 62 of 1997 – section 8 just and equitable assessment; section 9(2) procedural compliance for eviction applications; section 11 – periodic leases and occupiers post-4 February 1997; service of process and substituted service; alternative accommodation (section 9(3)) – weight in discretionary eviction decisions; section 13 – compensation for improvements and labour claims.
|
18 January 2013 |
|
Applicant failed to show development was on restitution land; interdict dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and prima facie right.
Land Claims Court – jurisdiction limited to land awarded under the Restitution of Land Rights Act; Interim interdict – applicant bears onus to show prima facie right (ownership/enforceable interest) and that development is on restitution land; Communal property association/standing dealt with in separate proceedings.
|
3 January 2013 |